Docket No. OW 2003 0075 Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Regulatory Record 9/ 5/ 2003 Section DCN Type Date Author/ Affiliation Receiver Subject CBI Pages 47 47.1 Memorandum 07/ 28/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Selenium Issues in the Metals Subcategory 2 47 47.2 Memorandum 06/ 23/ 03 Marla Smith, US EPA Elwood Forsht,

US EPA Listing of TSS and Selenium Data for Metals Subcategory 6 47 47.3 Table 06/ 19/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Table Decrease in post compliance pollutant reductions assuming no incidental removals 1 47 47.4 Memorandum 04/ 09/ 02 Juliana Stroup and ED Stigall,

ERG MP& M Record Molybdenum 4 47 47.5 Memorandum 07/ 25/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Requests to Delete Mo, Sb, and Ti as Regulated Parameters in the Oils Subcategory 6 47 47.6 Note 07/ 08/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Monitoring Cost Savings due to Deleting Se, Ba, Sb, Mo, and Ti Limits 1 47 47.7 Memorandum 08/ 27/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Assessment of NORA's May 8, 2003 Consolidated Submission on Barium Removal Requesting Deletion of the Barium Limits from the Oils Subcategory 4 47 47.8 Table 08/ 29/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record Table Decrease in post compliance pollutant reductions assuming no incidental removals 2 47 47.9 email 07/ 23/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA Jack Waggener,

NPRA July 31 CWR Meeting Topics 2 47 47.10. email 08/ 05/ 03 Jack Waggener, NPRA Elwood Forsht,

US EPA August 7th Meeting @ 1: 00 pm, CWT 1 47 47.11 email 08/ 06/ 03 Lee Bagby, NORA Elwood Forsht,

US EPA Comments on the Molybdenum Data in theCWT Background Document 1 47 47.12 Memorandum 09/ 05/ 03 Elwood Forsht, US EPA CWT Record August 7, 2003 Meeting Notes 1 47 47.12.1 Attachment A 08/ 07/ 03 Forsht CWT Record August 7, 2003 Meeting Attendees 1 47 47.12.2 Attachment B 08/ 07/ 03 NORA August 7, 2003 Meeting Agenda 1 47 47.12.3 Attachment C 08/ 07/ 03 NORA August 7, 2003 Meeting Handouts 18 47 47.12.4 Attachment D 08/ 07/ 03 Rich EllmanSpirit Services Forsht Jan & Feb 2003 Effluent Data 10 47 47.12.5 Attachment E 08/ 07/ 03 Scott Kuhn, Clean Harbors Forsht Clean Harbors Environmental Services Response to US Environmental Protection Agency Questions on Molybdenum Data Submittal 120 47 47.12.6 Attachment F 08/ 08/ 03 Scott Kuhn, Clean Harbors Forsht Cover Letter for Attachment E 1


870.5385 ( § 84 2) Mammalian bone marrow chromosome aberration test  Mouse Phenol purity not reported ( high commercial grade) Kolachana, et al. 1993 Acceptable  Non guideline 75 mg/ kg/ day Negative Individual treatment with phenol, hydroquinone, or catechol did not significantly increase 8 hydroxy 2' deoxyguanosine levels in mouse bone marrow cells compared to the control with only 11, 7, and 26% increases, respectively, in treated cells over control) Guideline Number/ Study Type/ Test Substance (% a. i.) MRID Number ( Year)/ Citation/ Classification/ Doses Results Page 38 of 42 870.5395 ( § 84 2) Mammalian erythrocyte  Mouse Phenol purity not reported Barale, et al. 1990 Acceptable  Non guideline 40, 80, and 160 mg/ kg/ day Negative There was no significant increase in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow of Swiss CD 1 male mice after treatment with phenol ( 40 160 mg/ kg). However, when phenol is combined with hydroquinone ( 40 80 mg/ kg) a significant dose related increase was observed.

870.5395 ( § 84 2) Mammalian erythrocyte  Mouse Phenol purity 99% Chen and Eastmond. 1995 Acceptable  Non guideline 50, 75, 100, or 160 mg/ kg/ day Negative There was no significant increase in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in bone marrow of CD 1 male mice following treatment with phenol ( 50 160 mg/ kg) alone. However, when phenol is combined with hydroquinone ( 60 mg/ kg), a significant increase in MNPCEs was observed. The data suggest that phenol genotoxic when combined with hydroquinone.

870.5395 ( § 84 2) Mammalian erythrocyte  Mouse Phenol purity not reported Gocke, et al. 1981 Acceptable  Non guideline 47, 98, and 188 mg/ kg/ day Negative There were no significant increases in the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes in mouse bone marrow cells at the concentrations of phenol used in this study. Phenol was not mutagenic in NMRI mouse bone marrow cells.

870.7485 ( § 85 1) Metabolism and pharmacokinetics  Rat Phenol purity not reported Capel, et al. 1972 Acceptable  Non guideline 25 mg/ kg/ day An average of 95% of 14C dose of phenol ( 25 mg/ kg) was excreted in the urine in 24 hours. Four metabolites, the sulfates and glucuronides of phenol and quinol, were found in the urine of rats after an oral dose of phenol. The phenyl sulfate and quinol sulfate metabolites represented 54 and 1%, respectively of the metabolites recovered in the urine. The remaining phenol metabolites recovered from the urine were phenyl glucuronide ( 42%) and quinol glucuronide ( 2%). Guideline Number/ Study Type/ Test Substance (% a. i.) MRID Number ( Year)/ Citation/ Classification/ Doses Results Page 39 of 42 870.7485 ( § 85 1) Metabolism and pharmacokinetics  Rat Phenol purity not reported Hughes and Hall. 1995 Acceptable  Non guideline 350 nmol/ kg Absorption of phenol was extensive following iv, oral, and it administration while dermal absorption was slightly lower by comparison. Phenol was predominantly conjugated with sulfate and lower amounts of glucuronic acid. These metabolites were rapidly excreted in the urine. Phenol was distributed throughout the body in low amounts and appeared to concentrate in liver, lung, and kidney. The data suggest that the exposure of phenol to rats by oral, dermal, intratracheal, and intravenous routes resulted in rapid absorption, conjugation, and elimination in urine.

870.7485 ( § 85 1) Metabolism and pharmacokinetics  Mouse Phenol purity not reported Capel, et al. 1971 Acceptable  Non guideline 25 mg/ kg/ day Intestinal conjugation of phenol prior to absorption was significant only at low dose, the first pass intestinal conjugation alone does not explain lack of carcinogenicity of phenol at much higher doses. The data suggest that a combination of first pass conjugation and zonal segregation of hepatic enzymes may contribute to the greater production of hydroquinone after oral administration of benzene than phenol. Hydroquinone and other metabolites may be the metabolic basis for carcinogenic and genotoxic effects observed with benzene but not phenol.

870.7600 ( § 85 3) Dermal Penetration Phenol purity not reported Behl and Linn. 1983 Acceptable  Non guideline 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 6.0% ( w/ v) in saline solution Age and hydration have little effect on the permeability of phenol through human and mouse skin and the effects on the skin were a result of destroyed barrier integrity. Permeation of and chemical denaturation by phenol were found to be similar between mouse and human skin tissue; indicating that the hairless mouse is an adequate model for chemical permeability in humans. The results suggest that the stratum corneum is proportionally impaired as the phenol concentration is increased. Page 40 of 42 9.0 References 34735401 ( MRID #): Jones Price, C and T. A. Ledoux. ( 1983). Teratologic Evaluation of Phenol ( CAS No. 108 95 2) in CD1 Mice. RTI.

43735402 ( MRID #): Jones Price, C and TA Ledoux. ( 1983). Teratologic Evaluation of Phenol ( CAS No. 108 95 2) in CD Rats. RTI.

Argus Research Laboratories, Inc. ( 1997). Oral ( gavage) developmental toxicity study of phenol in rats. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Protocol number: 916 011.

ATSDR. ( 1998). Toxicological Profile for Phenol. U. S. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. December.

Barale, Marrazzini, Betti, Vangelisti, Loprieno, and Barrai. ( 1990). Genotoxicity of Two Metabolites of benzene: Phenol and Hydroquinone Show Strong Synergistic Effects In Vivo. Mutation Research 244: 15 20.

Behl, Linn, et al. ( 1983). Permeation of Skin and Eschar by Antiseptics I: Baseline Studies With Phenol. J Pharm Sci 72.4: 391 396.

Berman E, M Schlicht, VC Moser, et al. ( 1994). A Multidisciplinary Approach to Toxicological Screening: I. Systemic Toxicity. J Toxicol Environ Health 45: 127 143.

Boutwell, R. K. and D. K. Bosch. ( 1959). The Tumor Promoting Action of Phenol and Related Compounds for Mouse Skin. Cancer Res. 19: 413 424.

Brown VKH, VL Box, BJ Simpson. ( 1975). Decontamination Procedures for Skin Exposed to Phenolic Compounds." 1975. Arch. Environ. Health, Vol 30.1 6 Bulsiewicz. " The Influence of Phenol on Chromosomes of Mice in the Process of Spermatogensis." 1977 Folia Morphology 36.1: 13 22.

Capel, French, Millburn, Smith, and Williams. " The Fate of [ 14C] Phenol in Various Species." Xenobiotica 2: 25 34; 1971.

Chen H and Eastmond D. " Synergistic increase in chromosomal breakage within the euchromatin induced by an interaction of the benzene metabolites phenol and hydroquinone in mice." 1995 Carcinogenesis 16( 8): 1963 1969.

ClinTrials BioResearch. 1998. A 13 week neurotoxicity study of phenol administered in the drinking water to the rat. Volumes 1 and 2. Senneville, Quebec, Canada. Project I. D.: 97439. P. Beyrouty, study director.

Conning DM, Hayes MJ. 1970. " The dermal toxicity of phenol: An investigation of the most effective first aid measures." Br J Ind Med 27: 155 159 Dalin and Kristoffersson. " Physiological effects of a sub lethal concentration of inhaled phenol on the rat." 1974. Ann Zool Fennici 11: 193 199. Page 41 of 42 Dow Chemical Co. 1994. Pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and distribution of C 14 phenol in Fischer 344 rats after gavage, drinking water, and inhalation exposure, with cover letter dated 07/ 13/ 1994. U. S. EPA/ OPTS Public Files Fiche # OTS0557473; Doc#: 86940001296. Hiser, M. F., B. E. Kropscott, R. J. McGuirk, and J. S. Bus, authors.

Flickinger CW. 1976. " The benzendiols: Catechol, resorcinol and hydroquinone  A review of the industrial toxicology and current industrial exposure limits." Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 37: 596 606.

Florin et al. " Screening of tobacco smoke constituents for mutagenicity using the Ames' test." 1980 Toxicology 15( 3): 219 232 Gocke et al. " Mutagenicity of cosmetics ingredients licensed by the European Communities." 1981 Mutation Research 90( 2) 91 109 Haworth, Lawlor, Mortelmans, Speck, and Zeiger. " Salmonella Mutagenicity Test Results for 250 Chemicals." Env. Mutagenesis Supplement 1: 3 142, 1983.

Hughes and Hall. " Disposition of Phenol in Rat after Oral, Dermal, Intravenous, and Intratracheal Administration." 1995.

Kolachana P, Subrahmanyam V, Meyer K, Zhang L, Smith M. " Benzene and its phenolic metabolites produces oxidative DNA damage in HL60 cells in vitro and in the bone marrow in vivo." 1993 Cancer Research 53: 1023 1026.

Moser, V. C., B. M. Cheek and R. C. MacPhail. 1995. A multidisciplinary approach to toxicological screening: III. Neurobehavioral toxicity. J Toxicol Environ Health. 45( 2): 173 210. Nagel et al. " Induction of filamentation by mutagens and carcinogens in a ion mutant of Esherichia coli." 1982 Mutation Research 105( 5): 309 312.

Narotsky M, Kavlock R. " A multidisciplinary approach to toxicological screening: II. Developmental Toxicity." 1995. J Toxicol Env Health 45: 145 171. NIH PB#  80 1759: Bioassay of Phenol for Possible Carcinogenicity. Hazleton Laboratories, Vienna, VA. NIH, 1980 NTP ( National Toxicology Program). 1986. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of benzene ( CAS No. 71 43 2) in F344/ N rats and B6C3F1 mice ( gavage studies). NTIS PB86 216967/ AS OTS #  0515564/ 86 870001402: Carpenter, C. P. " Skin Absorption and Irritation of Sodium Phenate." Mellon Institute of Industrial Research, University of Pittsburgh. May 5, 1948 ( unpublished).

OTS #  0515567/ 86 870001405: Carpenter, C. P. " The Acute Toxicity of Phenol." Mellon Institute of Industrial Research, University of Pittsburgh. May 6, 1949 ( Unpublished).

Paschin and Bahitova. " Mutagenicity of benzo[ a] pyrene and the antioxidant phenol at the GHPRT locus of V79 Chinese hamster cells." 1982 Mutation Research 104: 389 393.

Pool and Lin. " Mutagenicity testing in the Salmonella typhimurium assay of phenolic compounds and phenolic fractions obtained from smokehouse smoke condensates." 1982 Food and Chem Tox 20( 4): 383 391 Page 42 of 42 Ryan et al. 2001. " Two generation reproduction study and immunotoxicity screen in rats dosed with phenol via the drinking water." International Journal of Toxicology 20: 121 142.

Salaman, M. H. and O. M. Glendenning. 1957. Tumor promotion in mouse skin by sclerosing agents. Br. J. Cancer. 11: 434 444.

Stenius U, Warholm M, Rannug A et al. 1989. " The role of GSH depletion and toxicity in hydroquinone induced development of enzyme altered foci." Carcinogenesis. 10: 593 599.

U. S. EPA. 1986a. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register 51( 185): 33992 34003 U. S. EPA. 1999. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Review Draft, NCEA F 0644, July 1999. Risk Assessment Forum.

USEPA. 2002. Toxicological Review of Phenol. Intergrated Risk Information System ( IRIS).

Woodruff RC, Mason JM, Valencia R, and Zimmering ( 1985) " Chemical Mutagenesis Testing in Drosophilae. V. Results of 53 Coded Compounds Tested for the National Toxicology Program." Environmental Mutagenesis 7: 677 702.

Wynder, E. L. and D. Hoffmann. 1961. A study of tobacco carcinogenesis. VIII. The role of the acidic fractions as promoters. Cancer. 14( 6): 1306 1315.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71982-71983]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0557]

Advancing Regulatory Science for Highly Multiplexed Microbiology/
Medical Countermeasure Devices; Public Meeting; Reopening of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the
comment period for the notice announcing a public meeting for the
``Advancing Regulatory Science for Highly Multiplexed Microbiology/
Medical Countermeasure Devices'' that published in the Federal Register
of August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48169). In the notice, FDA requested public
comments regarding matters to be discussed at the October 13, 2011,
meeting, including the performance evaluation of highly multiplexed
microbiology/medical countermeasure (MCM) devices, their clinical
application and public health/clinical needs, and quality criteria for
establishing the accuracy of reference databases. FDA is reopening the
comment period to receive comment updates or any new information on the
concept paper entitled ''Advancing Regulatory Science for Highly
Multiplexed Microbiology/Medical Countermeasure Devices,'' for FDA's
proposed evaluation approach for assessing the performance of highly
multiplexed microbiology/MCM devices.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments and information by
December 21, 2011.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raquel Peat, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 5561, Silver Spring,

MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of August 8, 2011, FDA published a notice
announcing a public meeting for the ``Advancing Regulatory Science for
Highly Multiplexed Microbiology/Medical Countermeasure Devices,'' and
opening of a public docket to seek input and comments from interested
stakeholders to discuss the concept paper \1\ for FDA's proposed
evaluation approach for assessing the performance of highly multiplexed
microbiology/MCM devices, including the following topics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This concept paper may be found at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm267410.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Clinical Application of Highly Multiplexed Microbiology Devices:
Their clinical application and public health/clinical needs; inclusion
of MCM-related pathogens that are expected to be rarely present in the
tested specimens; the composition of clinically relevant panels of
pathogens; the interpretation of the test results taking into
consideration the possible detection of microorganisms that are not
clinically relevant, and what is known and unknown about co-infections.
    2. Device Evaluation: How to evaluate the analytical and clinical
performance of highly multiplexed microbiology devices; approaches to
device validation when positive specimens are not easily available,
which is the case for many MCM pathogens; the sufficiency, feasibility,
and practicality of the proposed FDA evaluation approach to establish
device performance.
    3. Reference Databases: Quality criteria for establishing the
accuracy of reference databases; methods for curating, maintaining, and
updating these databases; what is the current practice for creating and
maintaining reference databases.
    In the Federal Register notice of August 8, 2011, interested
persons were originally given until September 13, 2011, to submit
comments.

II. Request for Comments

    Following publication of the August 8, 2011, Federal Register
notice and posting of the concept paper, FDA received requests to allow
interested persons additional time to comment. The Agency has
considered the requests and is reopening the comment period until
December 21, 2011.

III. How To Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. In addition, when responding to specific questions as
outlined in Section I of this document, please identify the question
you are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: November 15, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-29937 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 246)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72955-72958]
[DOCID:fr26de07-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 89

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0652; FRL-8509-9]
RIN 2060-A037

Partial Removal of Direct Final Rule and Revision of the Nonroad
Diesel Technical Amendments and Tier 3 Technical Relief Provision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; partial removal; revision.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comment, we are making a partial
withdrawal and revision of the direct final rule for ``Nonroad Diesel
Technical Amendments and Tier 3 Technical Relief Provision'' published
on September 18, 2007.

DATES: This rule and partial withdrawal are effective December 26,
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuimdie Guerra, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-
4387; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 18, 2007 EPA published a direct
final rule for ``Nonroad Diesel Technical Amendments and Tier 3
Technical Relief Provision'' (72 FR

53118). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse
comment by October 18, 2007, we would publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register. EPA subsequently received adverse comments to
Tier 3 technical relief provision in 40 CFR 89.102(i) through (m).
Although we were not able to accomplish this action prior to the
effective date of the direct final rule, we are now, in light of the
adverse comment, withdrawing the direct final rule's revisions to 40
CFR 89.102 paragraphs (i) through (m). The other provisions of the the
direct final rule are not affected by this partial withdrawal and are
incorporated into the Federal Register as of the effective date of
November 18, 2007 direct final action.
    Concurrent with the direct final rule, we published a separate
notice of proposed rulemaking, to provide for the contingency of
adverse comments on the DFR. (72 FR 53294). We are now issuing a final
rule based on the notice of proposed rulemaking and on comments
received. Notice and an opportunity for additional comment on the
withdrawal of the direct final rule is unnecessary, within the meaning
of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). EPA has a legal obligation to withdraw those
portions of the direct final rule that were subject to adverse
comments[j1]. In addition, by its terms, the direct final rule would
become effective only in the absence of adverse comment.
    [j2] In today's final rule, EPA is adopting the
technical relief provisions originally proposed as 40 CFR 89.102
paragraphs (i) through (m), including a variety of modifications to
address the comments received. The main comment EPA received was to
correct an inappropriate cross-reference in the rule language, and this
final rule corrects this inadvertent drafting error as the commenter
properly suggested. We made the changes the commenter properly
suggested. The provision on technical relief is now found in paragraph
(i) exclusively.
    We responded to comments that did not require changes to the rule
in a memo to the docket. One concern of the commenter was that
manufacturers may ask for more relief than is needed. The rule is clear
that the Agency is not obligated to provide any amount of technical
relief if the Agency is not convinced of the need for it. The other
concern of the commenter was that manufacturers that use the Tier 3
technical relief may request additional relief for Tier 4 equipment.
Manufacturers are aware of this provision in advance of Tier 4 so
manufacturers should be able to reconcile their Tier 3 and Tier 4
relief needs.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 89

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

    Dated: December 17, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 89--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES

0
1. The authority citation for part 89 is continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
2. Section 89.102 is amended by revising paragraph (i) and removing
paragraphs (j) through (m).
    The revison reads as follows:

Sec.  89.102  Effective dates, optional inclusion, flexibility for
equipment manufacturers.

* * * * *
    (i) Additional exemptions for technical or engineering hardship.
You may request additional engine allowances under paragraph (d)(1) of
this section for 56-560 kW power categories or, if you are a small
equipment manufacturer, under paragraph (d)(2) of this section for
engines at or above 37 and below 75 kW. However, you may use these
extra allowances only for those equipment models for which you, or an
affiliated company, do not also produce the engine. After considering
the circumstances, we may permit you to introduce into U.S. commerce
equipment with such engines that do not comply with Tier 3 emission
standards, as follows:
    (1) We may approve additional exemptions if extreme and unusual
circumstances that are clearly outside your control and that could not
have been avoided with reasonable discretion have resulted in technical
or engineering problems that prevent you from meeting the requirements
of this part. You must show that you exercised prudent planning and
have taken all reasonable steps to minimize the scope of your request
for additional allowances.
    (2) To apply for exemptions under this paragraph (i), send the
Designated Compliance Officer and the Designated Enforcement Officer a
written request as soon as possible before you are in violation. In
your request, include the following information:
    (i) Describe your process for designing equipment.
    (ii) Describe how you normally work cooperatively or concurrently
with your engine supplier to design products.
    (iii) Describe the engineering or technical problems causing you to
request the exemption and explain why you have not been able to solve
them. Describe the extreme and unusual circumstances that led to these
problems and explain how they were unavoidable.
    (iv) Describe any information or products you received from your
engine supplier related to equipment design--such as written
specifications, performance data, or prototype engines--and when you
received it.
    (v) Compare the design processes of the equipment model for which
you need additional exemptions and that for other models for which you
do not need additional exemptions. Explain the technical differences
that justify your request.
    (vi) Describe your efforts to find and use other compliant engines,
or otherwise explain why none is available.
    (vii) Describe the steps you have taken to minimize the scope of
your request.
    (viii) Include other relevant information. You must give us other
relevant information if we ask for it.
    (ix) Estimate the increased percent of production you need for each
equipment model covered by your request, as described in paragraph
(i)(3) of this section. Estimate the increased number of allowances you
need for each equipment model covered by your request, as described in
paragraph (i)(4) of this section.
    (3) We may approve your request to increase the allowances under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, subject to the following limitations:
    (i) The additional allowances will not exceed 50 percent for each
power category.
    (ii) You must use up the allowances under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section before using any additional allowance under this paragraph (i).
    (iii) Any allowances we approve under this paragraph (i)(3) expire
24 months after the provisions of this section start for a given power
category. You may use these allowances only for the specific equipment
models covered by your request.

    (4) We may approve your request to increase the allowances for the
37-75 kW power category under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, subject
to the following limitations:
    (i) You are eligible for additional allowances under this paragraph
(i)(4) only if you are a small equipment manufacturer and you do not
use the provisions of paragraph (i)(3) of this section to obtain
additional allowances for the 37-75 kW power category.
    (ii) You must use up all the available allowances for the 37-75 kW
power category under paragraph (d)(2) of this section in a given year
before using any additional allowances under this paragraph (i)(4).
    (iii) Base your request only on equipment you produce with engines
at or above 37 kW and below 75 kW. You may use any additional
allowances only for equipment you produce with engines at or above 37
kW and below 75 kW.
    (iv) Any allowances we approve under this paragraph (i)(4) expire
24 months after the provisions of this section start for this power
category. These additional allowances are not subject to the annual
limits specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. You may use these
allowances only for the specific equipment models covered by your
request.
    (v) The total allowances under paragraph (d)(2) of this section for
the 37-75 kW power category will not exceed 700 units. The total
allowances under this paragraph (i)(4) follow the requirements under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section for the 37-75 kW power category and
will not exceed 200 units. Therefore, the total maximum allowances for
the 37-75 kW power category will not exceed 900 units.
    (5) For purposes of this paragraph (i), small equipment
manufacturer means an equipment manufacturer that had annual U.S.-
directed production volume of equipment using nonroad diesel engines
between 37 and 75 kW of no more than 3,000 units in 2002 and all
earlier calendar years, and has 750 or fewer employees (500 or fewer
employees for nonroad equipment manufacturers that produce no
construction equipment or industrial trucks). For manufacturers owned
by a parent company, the production limit applies to the production of
the parent company and all its subsidiaries and the employee limit
applies to the total number of employees of the parent company and all
its subsidiaries.
    (6) The following provisions for adjusted flexibilities for Tier 4
engines apply to equipment manufacturers that are granted additional
exemptions for technical or engineering hardship:
    (i) If you use the additional allowance under this paragraph (i)
you shall forfeit percent of production flexibility plus technical or
engineering hardship exemptions available for Tier 4 engines in the
amounts shown in Table 1 of this section.
    (ii) Table 1 of this section shows the percent of production
flexibility and technical or engineering hardship exemptions that you
must forfeit for Tier 4 engines. The amount of Tier 4 flexibility
forfeited by each equipment manufacturer depends on the percent of
production flexibility used for Tier 2 engines and the technical or
engineering hardship exemptions granted for Tier 3 engines in the
proportions shown in Table 1. For example, if you used 45 percent of
your production flexibility for Tier 2 engines, you must forfeit 2
percent of your production flexibility for Tier 4 engines for every 1
percent of technical or engineering hardship flexibility granted for
Tier 3 engines. In addition you must also forfeit 1 percent of any
technical or engineering hardship exemptions available for Tier 4
engines for every 1 percent technical or engineering hardship
exemptions available for Tier 3 engines. If you use the Tier 3
technical or engineering hardship allowances for 5 percent of your
equipment in each of two different years, you have used a total
allowance of 10 percent. Therefore you must forfeit a total of 20
percent of production flexibility for Tier 4 engines plus 10 percent of
any technical or engineering hardship exemptions available for Tier 4
engines.

     Table 1 of Sec.   89.102.--Adjustments to Tier 4 Flexibilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percent of   Percent of
                                                  forfeit      forfeit
 Percent of use Tier 2 production flexibility      Tier 4       Tier 4
                                                 production   tech./eng.
                                                flexibility   exemption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 0% and up to 20%.................            0            1
Greater than 20% and up to 40%................            1            1
Greater than 40% and up to 60%................            2            1
Greater than 60% and up to 80%................            3            1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Because the Tier 3 and Tier 4 rules have different power
category ranges, the availability of technical relief will be further
adjusted based on the sales volume by power category. Table 2 of this
section shows the applicable power categories for Tier 3 and Tier 4.
The Tier 3 power categories of 37kW to 75kW and 75kW to 130kW
correspond to the Tier 4 power category of 56kW to 130kW. For the Tier
3 equipment in the 37 to 75kW category, you must only use the sales
volume for equipment that uses engines with a rated power greater than
56kW. For example, if you have a Tier 3 piece of equipment that uses a
40 kW engine, the sales of the equipment are counted in the Tier 4
power category of 19kW to 56kW. If you have a Tier 3 piece of equipment
that uses a 60kW engine, the sales of the equipment are counted in the
Tier 4 power category of 56kW to 130kW. The Tier 3 power categories of
130kW to 225kW, 225kW to 450kW and 450kW to 560kW correspond to the
Tier 4 power category of 130kW to 560kW. You will need to sum the sales
of the Tier 3 power categories that correspond to the Tier 4 power
category during each calendar year in which Tier 3 technical relief is
used. The sum of all the Tier 3 units that are produced and exempted by
the technical relief divided by the sum of all the Tier 3 units sold in
the corresponding Tier 4 power category will determine the percentage
of Tier 4 flexibility affected. For example, if you produce 50 units
using Tier 3 technical relief in the range of 130kW to 225kW, and you
produce 50 units using Tier 3 technical relief in the range of 225 to
450kW, and no units are produced in the 450kW to 560kW range, and your
overall sales volume for the power ranges of 130kW to 560kW in Tier 3
is 400 units, the amount of Tier 3 technical relief used is 100/400 or
25 percent. Because you forfeit 1 percent of your Tier 4 technical
relief for every 1 percent of Tier 3 technical relief used, then you
will lose 25 percent of your Tier 4 technical relief in the 130kW to
560kW power range category. If you used 45 percent of your production
flexibility for Tier 2 engines, you must forfeit 2 percent of
production flexibility for Tier 4 engines for every 1 percent of Tier 3
technical relief. Therefore, you will forfeit 50 percent of your Tier 4
production allowance in the 130kW to 560kW power range category.

    Table 2 of Sec.   89.102.--Corresponding Tier 3 and Tier 4 Power
                               Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Tier 3  power categories             Tier 4  power  categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37< =kW< 75\*\..............................  19< =kW< 56
37< =kW< 75\**\, 75< =kW< 130.................  56< =kW< 130
130< =kW< 225, 225< =kW< 450, 450< =kW< 560.....  130< =kW< =560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Applies only to use of engines rated between 37kW and 56kW by small
  volume equipment manufacturers.
\**\ Includes only equipment that uses engines with a rated power
  greater than 56kw.

    (iv) Manufacturers using allowances under this paragraph (i) must
comply with the notification and reporting requirements specified in
paragraph (i)(7) of this section.
    (7) Notification and reporting. You must notify us of your intent
to use the technical relief provisions of this paragraph (i) and send
us an annual report to verify that you are not exceeding the
allowances, as follows:
    (i) Before the first year you intend to use the provisions of this
section, send the Designated Compliance Officer and the Designated
Enforcement Officer a written notice of your intent, including:
    (A) Your company's name and address, and your parent company's name
and address, if applicable.
    (B) Whom to contact for more information.
    (C) The calendar years in which you expect to use the exemption
provisions of this section.
    (D) The name and address of the company that produces the engines
you will be using for the equipment exempted under this section.
    (E) Your best estimate of the number of units in each power
category you will produce under this section and whether you intend to
comply under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.
    (F) The number of units in each power category you have sold in
previous calendar years under paragraph (d) of this section.
    (ii) For each year that you use the provisions of this section,
send the Designated Compliance Officer and the Designated Enforcement
Officer a written report by March 31 of the following year. Include in
your report the total number of engines you sold in the preceding year
for each power category, based on actual U.S.-directed production
information. Also identify the percentages of U.S.-directed production
that correspond to the number of units in each power category and the
cumulative numbers and percentages of units for all the units you have
sold under this section for each power category. You may omit the
percentage figures if you include in the report a statement that you
will not be using the percent-of-production allowances in paragraph (d)
of this section.
    (8) Recordkeeping. Keep the following records of all equipment with
exempted engines you produce under this paragraph (i) for at least five
full years after the final year in which allowances are available for
each power category:
    (i) The model number, serial number, and the date of manufacture
for each engine and piece of equipment.
    (ii) The maximum power of each engine.
    (iii) The total number or percentage of equipment with exempted
engines, as described in paragraph (d) of this section and all
documentation supporting your calculation.
    (iv) The notifications and reports we require under paragraph
(i)(7) of this section.
    (9) Equipment Labeling. Any engine produced under this paragraph
(i) must meet the labeling requirements of 40 CFR 89.110, but add the
following statement instead of the compliance statement in 40 CFR
89.110 (b)(10): THIS ENGINE MEETS U.S. EPA EMISSION STANDARDS UNDER 40
CFR 89.102. SELLING OR INSTALLING THIS ENGINE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER
THAN FOR THE EQUIPMENT FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS OF 40 CFR 89.102 MAY BE A
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.
    (10) Enforcement. Producing more exempted engines or equipment than
we allow under this paragraph (i) or installing engines that do not
meet the applicable Tier 1 emission standards described in Sec.  89.112
violates the prohibitions in Sec.  89.1003(a)(1). You must give us the
records we require under this paragraph (i) if we ask for them (see
Sec.  89.1003(a)(2)).

[FR Doc. E7-24976 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


             Joanna
             Swanson/RTP/USEP
             A/US                                                    To
                                      "Ibsen, Kelly"
             03/16/2007 04:32<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             PM                                                      cc
                                      "Miranda, Amy (DOE HQ)"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                                Subject
                                      Re: Cellulosic biomass to ethanol
                                      process description(Document
                                      link: Joanna Swanson)

Kelly,

Thanks so much for the quick turnaround on this.  This additional
information will be helpful.  We will let you know if we need additional
information.

Best Regards,
Joanna

             "Ibsen, Kelly"
             <Kelly_Ibsen@nre
             l.gov>                                                  To
                                      Joanna Swanson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
             03/16/2007 04:19                                        cc
             PM                       "Miranda, Amy (DOE HQ)"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                                Subject
                                      Cellulosic biomass to ethanol
                                      process description

Joanna,

Here is the process description Amy originally provided with detail
added about the pretreatment/conditioning steps and a reference for a
detailed report.  The web site announcing the "932" demo projects is
http://www.energy.gov/print/4827.htm.

Let me know if you need anything else.

Regards,

Kelly Ibsen

(See attached file: Process to Convert Lignocellulosic Biomass to
Ethanol rev 3-16-07 KI.doc)

 Process to Convert Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol rev 3-16-07 KI1.doc


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16264-16265]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Notice of Unsafe Condition Involving Commercial Motor Vehicles
Affected by Volvo Trucks North America's Safety Recall and Out-of-
Service Declaration

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA has determined that commercial motor vehicles
manufactured by Volvo Trucks North America (Volvo Trucks) and affected
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Part 573
Safety Recall Report No. 16V-097000, that have not already received the
interim or permanent recall remedy repair specified by Volvo in the
recall, are likely to cause an accident or breakdown because of a
defective steering shaft which may disconnect from the junction block
without warning, causing the vehicle to be in an unsafe condition.
FMCSA is notifying commercial motor vehicle operators that vehicles
subject to the recall without the interim or permanent repair will be
subject to an immediate out-of-service order under 49 CFR 396.9 or
compatible state regulations.

DATES: This Notice is effective March 23, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles J. Fromm, Deputy Chief

Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 16, 2016, Volvo Trucks initiated
a safety recall affecting nearly 16,000 Class 8 motor vehicles in the
United States. According to Volvo, a condition exists which could lead
to separation of the steering shaft from the junction block. Also, the
bolt connecting the upper steering shaft to the lower steering shaft
may not have been properly tightened. Volvo's report to NHTSA states
that either condition can lead to separation of the steering shaft and
immediate loss of steering ability and control, which could lead to a
crash. Volvo Trucks issued a Safety Recall Alert on March 10, which
directed all owners of the affected vehicles to take the vehicles out
of operation as soon as possible and cautioned that the separation can
occur without warning and amended its safety recall on March 15,
alerting NHTSA of the more serious hazard. Volvo Trucks strongly
recommends that these vehicles remain out of service until repairs are
made. NHTSA is overseeing Volvo Truck's recall efforts to ensure prompt
notification of the defect to vehicle owners and that vehicles are not
operated in a defective condition. Volvo's Safety Recall Report is
available on its Web site at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchDetails?searchCriteria.prod_ids=1991310&searchCriteria.model_yr=2016&searchCriteria.make=VOLVO&searchCriteria.model=VNL&activeTab=0&searchType=PROD&prodType=V&targetCategory=A&cmplCount=1&rclCount=3&invCount=1&tsbCount=0.
    Additionally, to assist with notification efforts, on March 18,
2016, FMCSA posted an Inspection Bulletin on its Web site. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/urgent-inspection-bulletin-safety-recall-issued-volvo-trucks. The Inspection Bulletin advised FMCSA inspectors
and state partners under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
(MCSAP) of the condition of the affected vehicles and requested
inspectors to direct the operators of such vehicles to contact Volvo
Customer Service before continuing in operation. The Inspection
Bulletin also noted that continued operation of the affected vehicles
could be considered a violation of 49 CFR 396.7, which prohibits
operation of a vehicle in a condition likely to cause an accident or a
breakdown. Today's notice formalizes that determination and clarifies
that FMCSA and its state partners under the MCSAP program will place a
vehicle out-of-service if the necessary repair or replacement has not
been made, based on the identified out-of-service defect under 49 CFR
393.209(c), which requires that a steering column to be securely
fastened.
    The Secretary of Transportation has statutory authority to set
minimum standards for commercial motor vehicle safety, including
ensuring that commercial motor vehicles ``are maintained, equipped,
loaded, and operated safely'' and to prescribe requirements for the
``safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier.'' (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 31502(b)). The Secretary also has broad power
in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations to, among
other things, ``inspect the equipment of a carrier or lessor'' and
``perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate.'' (49 U.S.C.
504(c)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(10)). The Administrator of FMCSA has
been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(f), (i) and (j) to carry out
the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C.
chapter 311, subchapter III, 49 U.S.C. chapter 315, and 49 U.S.C. 504.
This delegation of authority includes the authority to declare unsafe
vehicles out-of-service under 49 CFR 396.9. Under 49 U.S.C. 31102,
MCSAP State partners agree to conduct roadside inspections. In 49 CFR
part 350, MCSAP state partners agree to adopt state safety laws and
regulations that are compatible with 49 CFR parts 390-397.

Out-of-Service Determination

    FMCSA has determined that commercial motor vehicles subject to
Volvo Trucks' Safety Recall (NHTSA Part 573 Safety Recall Report No.
16V-097000), that have not already received the interim or permanent
recall remedy repair specified by Volvo in the above-referenced recall,
are likely to cause an accident or breakdown and are therefore in an
unsafe condition. The condition of the steering column is also a
violation of 49 CFR 393.209(c) which requires the steering column to be
securely fastened. Because of the potential consequences associated
with continued operation of these vehicles, through this notice FMCSA
is declaring unsafe the operation of any unrepaired vehicle affected by
the Volvo Trucks recall under NHTSA Campaign No. 16V097000 and
declaring such vehicles to be in an out-of-service condition. The
affected vehicles should not be operated, and the operation of an
unrepaired affected vehicle will therefore subject the operator to an
out-of-service order under federal or compatible state regulations.
    FMCSA is directing its investigators and state partners conducting
roadside inspections to perform a Level IV inspection on any unrepaired
affected vehicles and to place the vehicle out of service based on the
violation of 49 CFR 393.209(c). Level IV inspections, which are
typically performed on a one-time basis on a particular item as a
special inspection, are not included in FMCSA's Safety Measurement
System (SMS), and therefore the out-of-service declaration will not
affect a motor carrier's SMS score.
    Placing the vehicle out-of-service under this Notice is not
intended to provide a basis for further enforcement action and seeks
only the immediate cessation of the operation of vehicles that have
been deemed to be in an unsafe condition. Operators of vehicles
declared out-of-service, however, must comply with an out-of-service
order. Motor carrier operators who violate an out-of-service order will
be subject to civil penalties and other enforcement as provided in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: March
22, 2016.
T. F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-06880 Filed 3-23-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1096]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Haven Harbor, Quinnipiac
and Mill Rivers, New Haven, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Ferry Street Bridge across the Quinnipiac River, mile 0.7, at New
Haven, Connecticut. The deviation allows the bridge to keep one lift
span closed to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on January 3, 2011
through 5 p.m. on January 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1096 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1096 in the
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Ferry Street Bridge, across the
Quinnipiac River at mile 0.7, at New Haven, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 25 feet at mean high water and 31
feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed
at 33 CFR 117.213.
    The owner of the bridge, the City of New Haven, requested a
temporary deviation from the regulations to facilitate scheduled bridge
maintenance, replacing pinion couplings and brakes at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation the Ferry Street Bridge may keep one
lift span in the closed position from 8 a.m. on January 3, 2011 through
5 p.m. on January 6, 2011, and from 8 a.m. on January 10, 2011 through
5 p.m. on January 13, 2011. One lift span shall remain operational at
all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 17, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-33118 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Supporting Statement

for

Voyage Planning for Tank Barge Transits in the Northeast United States

OMB No.: 1625-0088

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  Instruction

A.  Justification.

1)  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

A permanent regulated navigation area (RNA) is established within the
geographic boundaries of the First Coast Guard District (northeast
region of the U.S.) to increase the operational safety of towing vessels
and tank barges.  The information collection requirements described in
this supporting statement are necessary to comply with 33 CFR
165.100(d)(3).  The U.S. Coast Guard requires any owner or operator of a
towing vessel, which is engaged in towing a tank barge, to prepare a
written voyage plan prior to departure.

These recordkeeping requirements are largely consistent with good
commercial practices and the dictates of good seamanship for safe
navigation.  Furthermore, the voyage plan provides a mechanism for
assisting masters of towing vessels in identifying those specific risks,
potential equipment failures, or human errors that may lead to an
incident.  Without an information collection, there would be reduced
means for the owner or operator of a towing vessel to be held
accountable for adequate navigational practices.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Protection

Recovery

Coast Guard

Marine Safety

Protection of Natural Resources

Prevention Policy & Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Safety:  Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.

Human and Natural Environment: Eliminate environmental damage associated
with maritime transportation and operations on and around the nation’s
waterways.

2)  Purpose of the information collection.

Accidents sometimes occur because towing vessels lack appropriate voyage
planning.  The information collection aids safe passage by ensuring that
the crew will properly plan for the anticipated voyage.  The master of
the towing vessel that is engaged in towing a tank barge will develop
the content of the voyage plan prior to the voyage.  The master is also
responsible for ensuring that the voyage plan is followed, or, if
deviations from the plan are made during the voyage, that the plan is
modified to a safe and appropriate alternative.  The voyage plan must be
in written or electronic form, be retained onboard the vessel, and be
readily available to the Coast Guard upon request.  Voyage plans also
serve as a means for Coast Guard inspectors/investigators to determine
if a vessel is in compliance or, in the case of a casualty, whether
failure to meet this regulation contributed to the casualty.

3)  Consideration of the use of improved information technology.

This requirement does not restrict the voyage plan to paper format.
Electronic files are allowed and would reduce the physical volume of
records on the vessel.  We estimate that 50% of respondents maintain
their voyage plans electronically.

4)  Efforts to identify duplication.

There are no State or local regulations relating to this issue.  No
similar information collection is conducted by other Federal agencies.

5)  Methods to minimize the burden to small businesses if involved.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

6)  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

If the collection was conducted less frequently, compliance with the
voyage plan requirement may not be verifiable.  Although the Coast Guard
believes that most prudent operators already employ many of these safety
principles, the regulations are intended to ensure compliance by those
vessels not conforming to the safety practices of the majority of the
industry.

7)  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8)  Consultation.

A 60-Day Notice (See [USCG-2015-0636], August 13, 2015, 80 FR 48552) and
30-Day Notice (XX XX, 2015, 80 FR XXXXX) were published in the Federal
Register to obtain public comment on this collection.  The Coast Guard
has not received any comments on this information collection.

9)  Provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10)  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11)  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12)  Estimates of hour and cost burdens to respondents.

The estimated number of annual respondents is 1,759.

The estimated number of annual responses is 1,759.

The estimated hour burden is 880 hours.

The estimated cost burden is $73,040.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  We estimate that
it will take the master of the towing vessel about 0.5 hour to prepare a
voyage plan.  The position of a master is analogous to a GS-13.  The
wage rate used is in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “Out-Government” personnel.

We estimate the number of voyage plans (i.e., voyages) based on U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers data.  We assume that a certain percentage of
voyages are petroleum-laden.  Additionally, we assume that a certain
percentage of voyage plans would be developed without this regulation
(I.e., voluntarily compliance).  To estimate the number of voyage plans
for this collection, we multiply the estimated annual number of voyages
times the percentage of voyages that are petroleum-laden times the
required compliance percentage to obtain the number of required voyage
plans.

13)  Estimates of annualized capital and start-up costs.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14)  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.

The estimated annual Federal Government cost is $780 (see Appendix B).
The cost is based on Coast Guard personnel reviews of the voyage plans
during periodic inspections, random boardings, and post-casualty
investigations.  We estimate 100 reviews per year, conducted by a
Lieutenant (LT, O-3) at 6 minutes (0.1 hours) per review.  The wage
rate used is in accordance with the current edition of COMDTINST
7310.1(series) for “In-Government” personnel.

15)  Explain the reasons for the change in burden.

The change (i.e., decrease) in burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a decrease
in the estimated annual number of responses.  There is no proposed
change to the recordkeeping requirements of this collection.  The
recordkeeping requirements remain unchanged.

16)  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis, and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17)  Approval to not display expiration date.

The Coast Guard will display the expiration date for OMB approval of
this information collection.

18)  Explain each exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Method.

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

  The Title 33 CFR Part 165 statutory authorities are 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46
U.S.C. 3306, 3307 & Chapter 701, and 50 U.S.C. 191 & 195.

  Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Years 2010, 2011 &
2012, for selected ports in the New England District and New York, NY
District.

1625-0088

 PAGE   4

  PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  3


[Federal Register: January 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3508-3509]
[DOCID:fr23ja06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-4-001, et al.]

LG&E Energy LLC et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings

January 17, 2006.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. LG&E Energy LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, et al.

[Docket Nos. EC06-4-001 and ER06-20-001]

    Take notice that on January 10, 2006, LG&E Energy LLC, together
with and on behalf of its public utility operating company subsidiaries
Louisville Gas and Electric Company (collectively, Applicants), filed
amendments to its application with the Commission seeking acceptance of
certain rates, terms, and conditions necessary for them to: (1)
Withdraw from the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc., and regain operational control of their respective transmission
system, (2) install a third party to act as reliability coordinator for
their transmission facilities; and (3) install an independent third
party to act as tariff administrator for their transmission system.
Applicants state the amendments include finalized versions of their
Independent Transmission System Organization and Reliability
Coordinator Agreements, as well as a final version of Applicants'
Withdrawal Agreement with the Midwest ISO.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 25, 2006.

2. Duke Energy Marketing America, LLC, DTE Energy Trading, Inc.

[Docket No. EC06-62-000]

    Take notice that on January 11, 2006, Duke Energy Marketing
America, LLC (DEMA) and DTE Energy Trading, Inc. (DTE Energy)
(collectively, Applicants) submitted an application pursuant to section
203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of
jurisdictional facilities in which DEMA proposes to transfer to DTE
Energy three wholesale electric power sales contracts. Applicants have
requested privileged treatment for commercially-sensitive information
contained in the Application.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 2, 2006.

3. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C.

[Docket No. EC06-63-000]

    Take notice that on January 12, 2006, Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing, L.L.C. (DETM) submitted an application pursuant to section
203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of
jurisdictional facilities in which DETM proposes to transfer to Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc. two wholesale electric power sales
contracts. DETM has requested privileged treatment for commercially-
sensitive information contained in the Application.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 3, 2006.

4. City of Azusa, California

[Docket No. EL06-23-000]

    Take notice that on January 3, 2006, the City of Azusa, California
submitted correction to its December 2, 2005 filing of third annual
revision to its Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 27, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-692 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 49052-49053]
[DOCID:fr25se09-148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60683; File No. SR-BATS-2009-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

September 17, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 8, 2009, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has
designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a
member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to
Members \5\ of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective
upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange effective September 8, 2009, in order to remove
references to ``BOLT'' processing on such fee schedule due to the
removal from functionalities offered by the Exchange of: (1) an order
type (a ``BATS Only BOLT Order'') and (2) a pre-routing processing
method (``BOLT Routing''). Such features were discontinued by the
Exchange effective September 1, 2009, and thus, the Exchange wishes to
remove the references effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change 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 of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and other
persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or
controls. The Exchange believes that the change is purely
administrative in nature, as it reflects changes the Exchange has
already made to other portions of its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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-BATS-2009-029 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 No. SR-BATS-2009-029. 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 will also 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 No. SR-BATS-2009-029 and should be
submitted on or before October 16, 2009.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23146 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37931-37933]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86508; File No. SR-BX-2019-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX
Pricing at Options 7, Section 3 Titled BX Options Market--Ports and
Other Services

July 29, 2019.
    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 15, 2019, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, 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 amend BX pricing at Options 7, Section 3
titled ``BX Options Market--Ports and Other Services.'' The amendment
will describe the pricing with respect to an upcoming technology
infrastructure migration.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.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 Exchange proposes to amend BX pricing at Options 7, Section 3
titled ``BX Options Market--Ports and Other Services.'' During the
month of August 2019, BX Participants will be required to transition
from current FIX Ports,\3\ CTI Ports \4\ and FIX DROP Ports \5\ to new
FIX Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports in connection with an upcoming
technology infrastructure migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Financial Information eXchange'' or '' FIX'' is an interface
that allows Participants and their Sponsored Customers to connect,
send, and receive messages related to orders to and from the
Exchange. Features include the following: (1) Execution messages;
(2) order messages; and (3) risk protection triggers and cancel
notifications. See Chapter VI, Section 21(a)(i)(A).
    \4\ Clearing Trade Interface (``CTI'') is a real-time clearing
trade update message that is sent to a Participant after an
execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to that
Participant. The information includes, among other things, the
following: (i) The Clearing Member Trade Agreement or ``CMTA'' or
The Options Clearing Corporation or ``OCC'' number; (ii) Exchange
badge or house number; (iii) the Exchange internal firm identifier;
(iv) an indicator which will distinguish electronic and non-
electronically delivered orders; (v) liquidity indicators and
transaction type for billing purposes; and (vi) capacity. See
Chapter VI, Section 19(b)(1).
    \5\ FIX DROP is a real-time order and execution update message
that is sent to a Participant after an order been received/modified
or an execution has occurred and contains trade details specific to
that Participant. The information includes, among other things, the
following: (i) Executions; (ii) cancellations; (iii) modifications
to an existing order; and (iv) busts or post-trade corrections. See
Chapter VI, Section 19(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Migration and Pricing Impact
    In connection with this migration, Participants will request new
FIX Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports during the month of August,
which are duplicative of the type and quantity of their current ports,
at no additional cost to allow for testing of the new ports and allow
for continuous connection to the match engine during the transition
period.\6\ For example, a BX Participant with 3 FIX Ports, 1 CTI Port
and 1 FIX DROP Port on August 1, 2019 could request 3 new FIX Ports, 1
CTI Port and 1 FIX DROP Port for the month of August 2019 at no
additional cost. The BX Participant would be assessed only for the
legacy market ports, in this case 3 FIX Ports, 1 CTI Port and 1 FIX
DROP Port, for the month of August 2019 and would not be assessed for
the new ports, which are duplicative of the current ports. A
Participant may acquire any additional legacy ports during the month of
August 2019 and would be assessed the charges indicated in the current
Pricing Schedule. The migration does not require a Participant to
acquire any additional ports, rather the migration requires a new port
to replace any existing ports provided the Participant desired to
maintain the same number of ports.\7\ A Participant desiring to enter
orders into BX is required to obtain 1 FIX Port. A Participant may also
obtain order and execution ports, such as a CTI Port and/or a FIX DROP
Port, to receive clearing and execution messages. The number of
additional FIX or order and execution ports obtained by a Participant
is dependent on the Participant's business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Participants would contact Market Operations to acquire new
duplicative FIX Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports. See Options
Technical Update #2019-3.
    \7\ The migration is 1:1 and therefore would not require a
Participant to acquire new ports, nor would it reduce the number of
ports needed to connect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicability to and Impact on Participants \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On May 21, 2019, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets
(the ``Division'') issued fee filing guidance titled ``Staff
Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees'' (``Guidance'').
Within the Guidance, the Division noted, among other things, that
the purpose discussion should address ``how the fee may apply
differently (e.g., additional cost vs. additional discount) to
different types of market participants (e.g., market makers,
institutional brokers, retail brokers, vendors, etc.) and different
sizes of market participants.'' See Guidance (available at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees). The Guidance
also suggests that the purpose discussion should include numerical
examples. Where possible, the Exchange is including numerical
examples. In addition, the Exchange is providing data to the
Commission in support of its arguments herein. The Guidance covers
all aspects of a fee filing, which the Exchange has addressed
throughout this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is not intended to impose any additional fees on any
BX Participants. All Participants may enter orders on BX. As noted
above, a BX Participant may enter all orders on BX through one FIX
Port. The Exchange does not require a BX Participant to obtain more
than one FIX Port, however, a Participant may obtain multiple FIX
Ports, a CTI Port or a FIX DROP Port to meet its individual business
needs. This proposal is intended to permit a BX Participant to migrate
its current FIX Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports at no additional
costs during the month of August 2019 to allow for continuous
connection to the Exchange. Participants would only be assessed a fee
for their current FIX Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports and not be
assessed a fee for any new duplicative ports they acquire in connection
with the technology infrastructure migration. This proposal is not
intended to have a pricing impact.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is also consistent with
Section 11A of the Act relating to the establishment of the national
market system for securities. Moreover, the Exchange believes that its
proposal complies with Commission guidance on SRO fee filings that the
Commission Staff issued on May 21, 2019.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \11\ See Guidance, supra note 8. Although the Exchange believes
that this filing complies with the Guidance, the Exchange does not
concede that the standards set forth in the Guidance are consistent
with the Exchange Act and reserves its right to challenge those
standards through administrative and judicial review, as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal Is Reasonable
    The Exchange's proposal is reasonable in several respects. As a
threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive
forces in the market for options transaction services that constrain
its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is
competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v.
Securities and Exchange Commission,

the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained,
`[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options transaction services. The Exchange is one of several options
venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it
represents a small percentage of the overall market. The Exchange
believes its proposal is reasonable because it will not cause a pricing
impact on any BX Participant, rather the proposal is intended to permit
BX Participants to migrate their FIX Ports, CTI Ports and FIX DROP
Ports to new technology at no additional cost during the month of
August 2019. This proposal, which offers new duplicative ports to
Participants at no cost, will allow Participants to test and maintain
continuous connection to the Exchange during the month of August 2019.
The Proposal Represents an Equitable Allocation and Is Not Unfairly
Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes its proposal allocates its fees fairly among
its market participants. The proposal is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. All Participants may enter orders on BX. As noted
above, a BX Participant may enter all orders on BX through one FIX
Port. The Exchange does not require a BX Participant to obtain more
than one FIX Port, however, a Participant may obtain multiple FIX
Ports, a CTI Port or a FIX DROP Port to meet its individual business
needs. This proposal is not intended to have a pricing impact to any BX
Participant.

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.
Inter-Market Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. This proposal does not amend pricing or functionality.
Rather, this technology migration will enable BX Participants to
continue to connect to BX, as is the case today, for the entry of
orders.
Intra-Market Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition. All Participants may enter orders on BX. As noted above, a
BX Participant may enter all orders on BX through one FIX Port. The
Exchange does not require a BX Participant to obtain more than one FIX
Port, however, a Participant may obtain multiple FIX Ports, a CTI Port
or a FIX DROP Port to meet its individual business needs. This proposal
is not intended to have a pricing impact to any BX Participant.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-BX-2019-027 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-BX-2019-027. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2019-027 and should be submitted on
or before August 23, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16481 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P