[Federal Register: August 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51793-51796]
[DOCID:fr31au06-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0630; FRL-8215-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Monitoring and Volatile Organic
Compound Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing full approval of some revisions and a limited
approval/limited disapproval of other revisions to the Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern definitions,
organic solvent controls, and various monitoring regulations. We are
proposing action on state provisions that regulate emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (Act or CAA). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 2, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0630, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-

line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4126.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What regulations did the State submit?
    B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?
    C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
    B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the regulation deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the regulations
    E. Proposed action and public comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What regulations did the State submit?

    The Governor's designee, the Nevada Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP),
submitted a large revision to the applicable state implementation plan
(SIP) on January

12, 2006. On March 23, 2006, the Nevada SIP submittal dated January 12,
2006 was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
    The primary purpose of these revisions is to clarify and harmonize
State and federally-enforceable requirements. Because these revisions
incorporate so many changes from the 1970s and 1980s vintage SIP
regulations, EPA has decided to review and act on the submittal in a
series of separate actions. The first such action (mostly related to
definitions, sulfur dioxide rules, and burning rules) was finalized in
the Federal Register on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15040). A second action
(related to state statutes) was proposed in the Federal Register on
June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33413). The remaining portions of the submittal
will be acted on in future Federal Register actions.
    The following table lists the provisions of the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC) addressed by this proposal with the dates
they were submitted by NDEP. Some of these provisions were renumbered
after their initial adoption. Two of these submitted rules would be new
to the SIP: NAC 445B.084 (``Hazardous air pollutant'') and NAC 445B.153
(``Regulated air pollutant''), while the remainder would amend existing
rules in the SIP.

                                              Submitted Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 NAC No.                                    NAC title                    Adopted      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
445B.015.................................  ``Alternative method'' defined............     10/03/95      01/12/06
445B.062.................................  ``Equivalent method'' defined.............     10/03/95      01/12/06
445B.063.................................  ``Excess emissions'' defined..............     10/04/05      01/12/06
445B.084.................................  ``Hazardous air pollutant'' defined.......     11/03/93      01/12/06
445B.134.................................  ``Person'' defined........................     09/16/76      01/12/06
445B.153.................................  ``Regulated air pollutant'' defined.......     10/04/05      01/12/06
445B.202.................................  ``Volatile organic compounds'' defined....     03/03/94      01/12/06
445B.22093...............................  Organic solvents and other volatile            10/04/05      01/12/06
                                            organic compounds.
445B.256.................................  Monitoring systems: Calibration, operation     10/03/95      01/12/06
                                            and maintenance of equipment.
445B.257.................................  Monitoring systems: Location..............     09/16/76      01/12/06
445B.258.................................  Monitoring systems: Verification of            09/16/76      01/12/06
                                            operational status.
445B.259.................................  Monitoring systems: Performance                09/16/76      01/12/06
                                            evaluations.
445B.260.................................  Monitoring systems: Components contracted      09/16/76      01/12/06
                                            for before September 11, 1974.
445B.261.................................  Monitoring systems: Adjustments...........     09/16/76      01/12/06
445B.262.................................  Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity     09/18/03      01/12/06
445B.263.................................  Monitoring systems: Frequency of operation     09/16/76      01/12/06
445B.264.................................  Monitoring systems: Recordation of data...     08/22/00      01/12/06
445B.265.................................  Monitoring systems: Records; reports......     04/26/84      01/12/06
445B.267.................................  Alternative monitoring procedures or           09/18/03      01/12/06
                                            requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the regulatory history of the Nevada SIP?

    Pursuant to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Governor of
Nevada submitted the original Nevada SIP to EPA in January 1972. EPA
approved certain portions of the original SIP and disapproved other
portions under CAA section 110(a). See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). For
some of the disapproved portions of the original SIP, EPA promulgated
substitute provisions under CAA section 110(c).\1\ This original SIP
included various rules, codified as articles within the Nevada Air
Quality Regulations (NAQR), and various statutory provisions codified
in chapter 445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). In the early
1980's, Nevada reorganized and re-codified its air quality rules into
sections within chapter 445 of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC).
Today, Nevada codifies its air quality regulations in chapter 445B of
the NAC and codifies air quality statutes in chapter 445B (``Air
Pollution'') of title 40 (``Public Health and Safety'') of the NRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Provisions that EPA promulgates under CAA section 110(c) in
substitution of disapproved State provisions are referred to as
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevada adopted and submitted many revisions to the original set of
regulations and statutes in the SIP, some of which EPA approved on
February 6, 1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975 at 40 FR 13306; on
January 9, 1978 at 43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43 FR 3278; on
August 21, 1978 at 43 FR 36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384; on
April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on
March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April 13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June
18, 1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982 at 47 FR 27070; on March 27,
1984 at 49 FR 11626. Since 1984, EPA has approved very few revisions to
Nevada's applicable SIP despite numerous changes that have been adopted
by the State Environmental Commission. As a result, the version of the
rules enforceable by NDEP is often quite different from the SIP version
enforceable by EPA.

C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this proposal is to bring the applicable SIP up to
date. The regulations that are the subject of this proposal include
certain definitions, organic solvent controls, and various monitoring
rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?

    Generally, SIP regulations must be enforceable (see section 110(a)
of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). Relevant EPA guidance and policy documents that we
used to help evaluate enforceability include ``Review of State
Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal
Sufficiency,'' dated September 23, 1987, from J. Craig Potter,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al.

B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe the following provisions are consistent with the
relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP
relaxations: NAC 445B.015, NAC 445B.062, NAC 445B.063, NAC 445.084, NAC
445B.134, NAC 445B.153, NAC 445B.202, NAC 445B.22093, NAC

445B.256, NAC 445B.257, NAC 445B.258, NAC 445B.259, NAC 445B.260, NAC
445B.261, NAC 445B.263, NAC 445B.264, and NAC 445B.265. Generally,
these submitted rules are unchanged from the older versions in the
existing SIP other than for certain clarifications and enhancements.
The Technical Support Document (TSD) dated August 16, 2006 has more
information on our evaluation.

C. What are the regulation deficiencies?

    The following provisions conflict with section 110 of the Act and
prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
    1. NAC 445B.262, Monitoring systems: Measurement of opacity, This
regulation lists the methods and procedures for measuring opacity. This
regulation allows the director to approve equivalent and alternative
opacity procedures without describing the criteria to be used. A new
paragraph has been added that removes the director's ability to approve
an equivalent or alternative method when determining compliance with
standards and emission limits contained in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and
affected sources in the acid rain program. This new paragraph limits
the breath of the director's discretion; however, the director
maintains the ability to approve equivalent and alternative methods for
SIP sources. This constitutes a SIP deficiency and conflicts with
section 110 of the CAA. A third paragraph can be added to NAC 445B.262
requiring that equivalent and alternative test methods for SIP sources
be approved in advance by EPA.
    2. NAC 445B.267, Alternate monitoring procedures or requirements.
This regulation lists situations when an alternative monitoring
procedure or requirement can be approved by the director. A new
paragraph has been added that removes the director's ability to approve
an equivalent or alternative method when determining compliance with
standards and emission limits contained in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and
affected sources in the acid rain program. This new paragraph limits
the breath of the director's discretion; however, the director
maintains the ability to approve alternative methods for SIP sources
and for ASTM test methods. This constitutes a SIP deficiency and
conflicts with section 110 of the CAA. A third paragraph can be added
to NAC 445B.267 requiring that equivalent and alternative test methods
for SIP sources be approved in advance by EPA.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Regulations

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the state
modifies their rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Pursuant to sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a full approval of the following provisions: NAC 445B.015,
NAC 445B.062, NAC 445B.063, NAC 445.084, NAC 445B.134, NAC 445B.153,
NAC 445B.202, NAC 445B.22093, NAC 445B.256, NAC 445B.257, NAC 445B.258,
NAC 445B.259, NAC 445B.260, NAC 445B.261, NAC 445B.263, NAC 445B.264,
and NAC 445B.265.
    In addition, EPA is proposing a limited approval of NAC 445B.262
and NAC 445B.267 to improve the SIP. This approval is limited because
EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the two
provisions mentioned above. If we finalize this limited disapproval, we
will not be imposing sanctions under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31
because the state's submittal of NAC 445B.262 and NAC 445B.267, which
represent updated versions of existing SIP rules, was not required
under the Clean Air Act. If finalized as proposed, this action would
incorporate the submitted provisions into the SIP, including those
provisions identified as deficient.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Final approval of these rules would supersede the following
rules in the applicable SIP (superseding rule shown in parentheses)
upon the established compliance date for any new or amended
requirements in the superseding rules: NAC 445.439 (NAC 445B.015);
NAC 445.501 (NAC 445B.062); NAC 445.504 (NAC 445B.063); NAC 445.564
(NAC 445B.134); NAC 445.650 (NAC 445B.202); NAC 445.846, NAQR
Articles 9.2.1, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> (NAC 445B.22093); NAQR Articles
2.17.10 and <IP_ADDRESS> (NAC 445B.256); NAQR Articles 2.17.6, 2.17.7
(NAC 445B.257); NAC 445.685 (NAC 445B.258); NAC 445.686 (NAC
445B.259); NAC 445.687 (NAC 445B.260); NAC 445.688 (NAC 445B.261);
NAC 445.689 (NAC 445B.262); NAC 445.690 (NAC 445B.263); NAC 445.691
(NAC 445B.264); NAC 445.692 (NAC 445B.265); and NAC 445.693 (NAC
445B.267).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will accept comments from the public on this proposed approval
and limited approval/disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes to approve state rules as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 21, 2006.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06-7320 Filed 8-30-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7620-7623]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02840]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77080; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Include NextShares in the Lead Market Maker Program

February 8, 2016.
    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 February 2, 2016, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 Nasdaq. 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

    Nasdaq proposes to add NextShares to the list of securities
eligible to be Qualified Securities under the Lead Market Maker Program
of Rule 7014(f) and to make a technical change to the rule. Nasdaq will
implement the proposed rule change on February 26, 2016.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Nasdaq's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
Nasdaq, 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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
Background
    Nasdaq is proposing to include NextShares, listed under Rule 5745,
to the list of securities eligible to be treated as a Qualified
Security under the Lead Market Maker (``LMM'') Program of Rule 7014(f).
    The LMM Program is designed to provide incentive to market makers
to make markets in certain relatively illiquid exchange-traded products
(``ETPs''). To achieve this goal, Nasdaq provides credits to a
designated LMM for execution of a Qualified Security. Under Rule
7014(f)(1), a security may be designated as a ``Qualified Security''
if: (A) It is an exchange-traded fund or index-linked security listed
on Nasdaq pursuant to Nasdaq Rules 5705, 5710, 5720, or 5735; and (B)
it has at least one LMM.
    An LMM is a registered Nasdaq market maker for a Qualified Security
that has committed to maintain minimum performance standards, which are
based on certain percentages

of time that the LMM is quoting at the national best bid and offer
(``NBBO''). An LMM is selected by Nasdaq based on several factors
including, but not limited to, experience with making markets in
exchange-traded funds and index-linked securities, adequacy of capital,
willingness to promote Nasdaq as a marketplace, issuer preference,
operational capacity, support personnel, and history of adherence to
Nasdaq rules and securities laws. Nasdaq may limit the number of LMMs
in a security, or modify a previously established limit, upon prior
written notice to members.
Proposed Change to Rule 7014(f)
    As previously noted, Nasdaq currently includes in the program
Portfolio Depository Receipts, Index Fund Shares, Securities Linked to
the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies),
Trust Issued Receipts, and Managed Fund Shares. Nasdaq is proposing to
add another ETP, NextShares, as eligible to be a Qualified Security
under the LMM Program.
    The term NextShares means a security that (a) represents an
interest in a registered investment company (``NextShares Fund'')
organized as an open-end management investment company that invests in
a portfolio of securities and other assets selected and managed by the
NextShares Fund's investment adviser consistent with the NextShares
Fund's investment objectives and policies; (b) is issued in a specified
aggregate unit quantity in return for a deposit of a specified
portfolio of securities and/or a cash amount with a value per NextShare
equal to the NextShares Fund's net asset value; (c) when aggregated in
the same specified unit quantity, may be redeemed for a specified
portfolio of securities and/or cash with a value per NextShare equal to
the NextShares Fund's net asset value; and (d) is traded on Nasdaq or
another national securities exchange using net asset value (``NAV'')-
Based Trading.\3\ NextShares will trade on Nasdaq using a new trading
protocol called ``NAV-Based Trading.'' In NAV-Based Trading, all bids,
offers and execution prices will be expressed as a premium/discount
(which may be zero) to the NextShares' next-determined NAV (e.g., NAV-$
0.01; NAV+$ 0.01). A NextShares' next-determined NAV will be
represented at the beginning of each trading day by a proxy price of
100.00. A NextShares' NAV will be determined each business day,
normally no later than 6:45 p.m. Eastern Time. At this time, the day's
premiums/discounts associated with the day's transactions will be
applied to the day's NAV to create the final transaction price. Trade
executions using NAV-Based Trading will be binding at the time orders
are matched on Nasdaq's facilities, with the transaction prices
contingent upon the determination of the NextShares' NAV at the end of
the business day. Nasdaq represents that an [sic] NextShares' next-
determined NAV will be represented by a proxy price (e.g., 100.00) and
a premium/discount of a stated amount to the next-determined NAV to
[sic] be represented by the same increment/decrement from the proxy
price used to denote NAV (e.g., NAV-$0.01 would be represented as
99.99; NAV+$0.01 as 100.01). To convert proxy prices used to represent
intraday bids, offers, and execution prices into prices expressed in
relation to the next-determined NAV, member firms would subtract from
the reported proxy price (e.g., 99.99) the proxy for NAV (e.g., 100.00)
and insert ``NAV'' in front of the calculated number expressed in
dollars (e.g., 99.99-100.00 = -0.01, expressed as ``NAV-$0.01'').
Nasdaq will report intraday bids, offers, and trades for NextShares in
real-time to the Consolidated Tape using the proxy price format. In
addition, Nasdaq will disseminate intraday NextShares bids, offers, and
trades through a proprietary exchange data feed using the NAV + $.01/
NAV-$.01 format. Nasdaq will also provide the member firms
participating in each NextShares trade with a contemporaneous notice of
trade execution, indicating the number NextShares bought or sold and
the executed premium/discount to NAV. All orders to buy or sell
NextShares that are not executed on the day the order is submitted
would be automatically cancelled as of the close of trading on such
day.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 5745(c)(1).
    \4\ For a description of NAV-Based Trading and proxy price, see
Rule 5745(b)(3); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73562
(November 7, 2014), 79 FR 68309 (November 14, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-
020) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75815 (September 2,
2015), 80 FR 54349 (September 9, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a new and novel ETP, Nasdaq is proposing to include NextShares
in its LMM Program to provide incentive to market makers to make
markets in NextShares, which will help to ensure that adequate
liquidity is provided in the novel product. This will benefit market
participants interested in buying or selling these ETPs. As noted
above, the LMM Program's performance criteria are based on an LMM's
quoting at the NBBO. For purposes of the LMM Program, Nasdaq will use a
NextShares' best proxy price bid and offer in comparison to an LMM's
quoting at the time to determine whether it meets the performance
criteria. Nasdaq will list and trade the first NextShares product on
February 26, 2016 and plans to include NextShares in the LMM Program as
Qualified Securities effective that day.
    Nasdaq is also proposing to make a technical change to rule text in
Rule 7014(f). Currently, Nasdaq describes Qualified Securities as being
``exchange-traded fund or index-linked security listed on Nasdaq
pursuant to Nasdaq Rules 5705, 5710, 5720, or 5735.'' \5\ Nasdaq is
proposing to replace references to exchange-traded funds and index-
linked securities under subparagraphs (f)(1)(A) and (f)(2) of Rule 7014
with the term ``exchange-traded product,'' which is a broader term that
incorporates exchange-traded funds, index-linked securities, and
NextShares within its meaning. The new term does not change what is
eligible to be a Qualified Security under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 7014(f)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that inclusion of NextShares in the LMM Program is
reasonable because the new ETP is novel, and offering incentives to
market makers to provide liquidity in the product will help ensure its
successful launch. The LMM Program is designed to improve liquidity in
ETPs by allocating rebates to LMMs that quote at the national best bid
and best offer for certain percentages of time. As additional
incentive, the LMM Program

also provides different levels of fee caps on the fees assessed for
participation in the Opening and Closing Crosses on Nasdaq. The LMM
Program has been successful at improving market quality in the
securities covered by the program. Thus Nasdaq believes the program
will be effective at providing incentive to market makers on Nasdaq to
become LMMs in NextShares thereby improving market quality in those
securities. Nasdaq believes that the proposed change to Rule 7014(f) is
an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because all
market makers that are elected to be designated as LMMs and meet the
minimum performance criteria have the opportunity to qualify for a
rebate and fee cap under the program in NextShares. Nasdaq believes
that the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public
interest because it may increase market maker participation in
NextShares, which would in turn make the market in NextShares deeper
and more liquid than it would be if NextShares were not included in the
program. Deep and liquid markets protect investors and promote the
public interest by allowing market participants to buy and sell
securities quickly at competitive prices.
    Lastly, Nasdaq believes that the proposed use of the term exchange-
traded product in lieu of the terms exchange-traded fund and index-
linked security is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it clarifies the rule text with a more
commonly-used term to describe the securities eligible to be Qualified
Securities under the LMM Program and does not change the type of
securities eligible to be included in the program.

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, the
change is designed to improve market quality through the application of
an ETP incentive program to a type of ETP that is currently not part of
the program. A new ETP product, NextShares, may have comparatively low
liquidity upon listing. Including NextShares in the LMM Program is
designed to improve market quality in NextShares. Lastly, to the extent
market quality in NextShares improves from inclusion in the LMM
Program, the proposed change may promote competition among exchanges
for new NextShares listings and similar incentive programs, to the
benefit of all market participants trading NextShares.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
NextShares may be included as Qualified Securities in the LMM Program
on February 26, 2016, the first day of trading for NextShares on
Nasdaq. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it could allow NextShares investors to benefit from potential
increased liquidity that an LMM could provide in a Qualified Security
as early as the first day of trading for NextShares on Nasdaq.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-019 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-NASDAQ-2016-019. 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. 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-

NASDAQ-2016-019 and should be submitted on or before March 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02840 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                     US Interagency GHS Coordinating Group
                                Public Meeting
                         200 Constitution Avenue, NW
                                Room C5521, # 4
                             Washington, DC 20210

                               November 30, 2010
                             Summary of Discussion

Maureen Ruskin called the meeting to order at 1:04 pm and read an opening statement (attached)
API provided written comments for the panel (attached)

Opening Statement
1. Updating of the third revised edition of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
	 (a)	Physical hazards
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9 (Germany)
Classification of chemically unstable gases and gas mixtures
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/10 (Germany)
Determination of chemical instability of gases
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/16 (United States of America)
Proposal to address simple asphyxiants in the GHS
   CLASSIFICATION OF CHEMICALLY UNSTABLE GASES AND GAS MIXTURES ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/69-ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9
   The working paper provides a proposal to update GHS Chapter 2.2 Flammable Gases to include classification criteria and hazard communication label elements for two Chemically Unstable Gas Categories.  The proposal incorporates editorial revisions, such as modifying the name of Chapter 2.2 to "Flammable gases (including chemically unstable gases)", to the proposal submitted in informal document UN/SCEGHS/19/INF.25 & UN/SCETDG/37/INF.62 during the 19[th] session.  It also proposes assignment of precautionary statement P202 "Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood" to gases classified into either category of chemically unstable gases.
   * In response to a stakeholder's question, Maureen Ruskin stated that there is no guarantee that a working paper will be adopted into the GHS.
   * Michelle Sullivan asked whether the changes adopted during this session affect OSHA's proposal to adopt GHS in the US.
   * Ed Baird replied that OSHA's final rule on the revisions to its Hazard Communication Standard is constrained by the notice of proposed rulemaking and the record developed in the rulemaking proceedings.  OSHA intends to deal with any new changes adopted at the upcoming meeting, if necessary, through additional rulemaking. .
   * Mike Wright supported including as classification.
   Determination of chemical instability of gases,
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/70-ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/10
   Working paper 10 contains the proposal for a method to determine whether a gas is chemically unstable using the classification criteria proposed in working document ST/SC/AC.10/C.3/2010/69-ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9 at the 19[th] session of the GHS sub-committee.  The TDG sub-committee has previously approved that this method be incorporated into the Manual of Test and Criteria.
   * Michelle Sullivan inquired as to what effect these informal papers would have on the GHS.
   * Maureen Ruskin stated that the Agency was concerned that this proposal would create a moving target. She informed stakeholders that US was currently was waiting for an update from Transport, and was in the process of developing a position.
   * Maureen Ruskin confirmed that Transport had already adopted the test method, which had the potential of being adopted in the Orange Book.
   * Mike Wright supported the informal paper in principle, and argued that the more information provided to suppliers and users the better.
   Proposal to address simple asphyxiants in the GHS
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/16 (U.S.)
   This paper provides a proposal to address simple asphyxiants in Chapter 2.5, Gases Under Pressure, of the GHS and was developed in consultation with the Practical Classifications Issues (PCI) correspondence group as part of its program of work for this biennium.  It incorporates comments from the perspectives of various participants (i.e., competent authorities and industry).  The criteria and hazard communication elements are being proposed as a building block option.

   * Robert Keifer suggesting adding the caveat "in confined or enclosed spaces."
   * Mike Wright supported the paper, but stated that he was wary that the term "enclosed spaces," was too limiting because people can asphyxiate in spaces that do not qualify as an "enclosed space." He indicated that the term "enclosed spaces" is a misnomer, because as long as a gas can be confined and is heavier than air, it can displace oxygen. He supported the use of hazard warning, "displaces oxygen."
   * API supported the proposal as currently written
   * Several stakeholders questioned the use of the word "data." A suggestion was made to replacing the word "data" with "any information" or "appropriate information."
           (b)	 Health hazards
The Sub-Committee will be informed about the progress of the work of the informal correspondence groups dealing with matters related to health hazards.
	(c)	Environmental hazards
At the time of writing no document has been submitted under this agenda item.
	           (d)	Annexes
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/12 (United Kingdom)
Revision of annexes 1, 2 and 3 of the GHS: Precautionary statements

   Working Paper 12 - Revision of Annexes 1, 2, and 3 of the GHS - Precautionary Statements
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/12
   The working paper proposes a set of amendments to rationalize and in some cases to provide further clarification on the use of existing precautionary statements.  The accompanying informal paper provides support to the working paper by providing full justifications of the changes, example substances that trigger precautionary statements, and excerpts from Annex 3 of the GHS.

   * Mike Wright stated that he supported the proposal, with the caveat that he believed removing Precautionary Statement 223 would be a mistake. However, he indicated that if the information was already on the label he could the support change.
   * Robert Keifer stated that he supported the flexibility of using precautionary statements as guidance.

          (e)	Miscellaneous proposals
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/6
(Secretariat)
Draft amendments to the GHS adopted in principle by the Sub-Committee at its nineteenth session

   Draft amendments to the 3[rd] revised edition of the GHS adopted in principle by the Sub-committee at its 19[th] session - ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/6

   * Michelle Sullivan pointed out a typo in 3.1.2 Acute Toxicity
   * Maureen Ruskin stated that the correction has been approved and will be corrected through a working paper.
2. Hazard communication issues
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/13
(United Kingdom/FEA)
Hazard communication for supply and use of aerosols
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/14 (RPMASA)
Proposal for revision of P410 for gases in transportable gas cylinders under pressure
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/18 (EIGA)
Hazard communication for gases under pressure: proposal resulting from ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/19 (Australia)
Information relating to nanomaterials for inclusion on the guidance on the preparation of Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
   HAZARD COMMUNICATION FOR SUPPLY AND USE OF AEROSOLS
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/86 & ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/13
   The working paper amends the UK/FEA proposals made during the 19[th] session of the GHS sub-committee.

   * Laura Madden, CPSA strongly supported this paper.
   * ACI supported the working paper.
   * In response to a question from Robert Keifer, Maureen Ruskin stated that the US has supported the proposal.
   * In response to a question from Michele Sullivan, Ed Baird stated that this proposal, if adopted by the subcommittee, would not be included in the final rule for the current GHS rulemaking.
   Proposal for revision of precautionary statement P410 for gases in transportable gas cylinders under pressure
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/14
   This paper proposes updating the Conditions for use (5) column of Table A2.2.4 (GHS Annex 3, Section 2) to include the following text for Precautionary Statement P410 Protect from sunlight: "- may be omitted for gases filled in transportable gas cylinders in accordance with packing instruction P200 of the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations, unless those gases are subject to (slow) decomposition or polymerisation, or the competent authority provides otherwise".

   * No comments.
   Hazard communication for gases under pressure: proposal resulting from ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/9
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/18
   This paper proposes modifying the hazard statement H280 "Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated" which is used for the categories Compressed Gas, Liquefied Gas and Dissolved Gas under the hazard class Gases Under Pressure.  The proposed hazard statement is "Contains gas under pressure may burst if heated".  The rationale provided for this proposal is to keep the terminology similar to the new hazard statement H229 "May burst if heated" which is being proposed for the labeling of aerosols in Chapter 2.3.  While the paper asserts a link between European Industrial Gases Association's (EIGA's) proposal and Working Paper 9 on chemically unstable gases, in fact, the proposal would simply change (weaken) the hazard statement for all gases under pressure to be consistent with the statement proposed by the UK and FEA for aerosols in Working Paper 13.

   * No comments
   Information relating to nanomaterials for inclusion on the guidance on the preparation of Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/19
   This paper provides further updates to the work that Australia has undertaken since the 18[th] session when they proposed including additional physicochemical information in section A<IP_ADDRESS> of Annex 4 of the GHS.  Australia notes the work of multiple organizations working to address engineered nanomaterials and specifically notes the progress of the ISO TC229 Working Group 3 project.  This paper also informs the GHS sub-committee of Australia's proposed content for the Australian SDS Code of Practice, which will specifically address the information provided for nanomaterials on an SDS.   This paper specifically asks the sub-committee to note progress made in relation to characterization and test methods for physiochemical properties of engineered nanomaterials and the Australian precautionary approach to the SDS.

   * Maureen Ruskin confirmed that this paper was an update rather than a proposal.
   * Mike Wright supported the inclusion of nanomaterials, and inquired as to whether it would fit under 3A, implementation issues.
   * Maureen Ruskin responded that implementation issues are for practical matters, and are not geared toward bringing in new classifications
   * NIOSH and several stakeholders asserted that some provision should be made for nanomaterials and carbon nanotubes. Stakeholders also inquired as to the whether the OCED would support the adoption of nanomaterials.
   * Mary Frances Lowe stated that GHS is based on existing systems. She added that because nanotechnology a very technical emerging issue, a foundation would need to be created before it can be adopted. She concluded by stating that if significant progress was made on this issue, the Subcommittee would not be opposed to picking it up.
   * API said it would support further work on this issue.
   * Rick Niemier stated that nanomaterials have been included in REACH, and there is a REL for titanium dioxide.
3. Implementation of the GHS
          (a)	Implementation issues
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/7
(AISE, SDA, IPPIC, CEFIC)
Proposal to address potential issues associated with the adoption of "corrosive to metals" for supply/use situations
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/15 (United States of America)
Proposals to address issues from the programme of work for the practical classification issues correspondence group
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/20 (Australia)
Proposals from the informal working group on GHS implementation issues: Global list of GHS classified chemicals

Proposal to address potential issues associated with the adoption of "Corrosive to metals" for supply/use situations
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/7
The working paper modifies the original proposal, submitted by the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE) as an information paper (UN/SCEGHS/19/INF.31) at the 19[th] session, proposing that competent authorities be able to implement an exemption for applying the corrosive to metals label elements, for the supply/use sector, when Substances and Mixtures classified as corrosive to metals but are not corrosive to skin and/or eyes.  The current proposal still seeks to limit the exemption for substance and mixtures that are in the finished state, intended for the final user.  However, this proposal now applies to all sizes of containers since the condition "and the contents of the immediate container do not exceed 5 liter/5 kg" has been removed from the proposal."  In those cases where the exemption to the corrosive to metals label elements is applied the information for the classification "corrosive to metals" would still be included in the SDS

         *       American Cleaning Institute indicated this is a way to avoid labeling that has no meaning or relevancy, and to provide flexibility to the competent authority. For example small bottles of industrial and consumer products, would not pose a corrosive to metal risk.
   * Mike Wright, in response to the proposal, stated that routine use could make a danger significant, whereas one time use would not.
   * Dan Levine raised the point that consumers do transfer containers.
   * Mike Wright stated numerous fires and releases in the oil refining sector were due to metal corrosion.
   * ACI stated that even after decades of experience, metal corrosion has yet to pose an issue for consumer products.
   * Mike Wright suggested that a separate pictogram should be developed for corrosive to people.
   * Another stakeholder inquired as to whether there were exceptions for small containers.
   * Mary Francis Lowe stated that while there were no exceptions, but if the hazard doesn't exist then it does not have to be included.
   * Paul Brigandi added that working groups were currently determining how to address warnings on small labels.

   Comments on Annex 3 to ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/15
   This paper discusses and comments on the worked aquatic environment examples provided in Working Paper #15.  The annex to the paper provides suggested changes to the working paper.  The paper proposes accepting the changes now or waiting until the UNITAR training document is proposed and including the changes in the training document.

   * API supported the paper, except the change of 1.3 on page three, because the modification would change how you classify mixtures.
   * Deana Holmes stated that the purpose of the modification ensure that the chapters correspond, and it would not change the criteria for classifying mixtures.
   * Paul Brigandi added that it was not the intention of the Subcommittee to reopen the issue. He stated that the modification was geared toward making the text and overview consistent. No additional work was being proposed.
   * Michelle Sullivan asked OSHA to note and keep an eye on the issue.
   Proposals from the informal working group on GHS implementation issues: Global list of GHS classified chemicals
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/20
   The working paper provides a summary of responses (see INF.5 for consolidated list of all responses) to the survey to capture factual information on the development and maintenance of a list of GHS classified chemicals currently in existence or planned, and to elicit views on the benefit and practical issues that would be posed by development of a future single global list.  This paper highlights common themes and issues related to the development of a global list.  The paper proposes that the GHS sub-committee consider formation of a small informal working group to study in detail the issues raised by respondents and prepare a discussion paper for consideration by the GHS sub-committee in December 2011.  It then proposes Terms of Reference for the small informal working group.

   * Maureen Ruskin stated that OSHA was still in discussions regarding this issue.
   * API questioned whether the Subcommittee should even undertake the development of a list.
   * Mary Frances Lowe argued that a global list would be helpful for developing countries, and suggested it would be beneficial to create a master list rather than have numerous conflicting lists.
   * ACC suggested developing an e-portal that everyone could use.
   * Mike Wright supported the proposal.
   * API supported proposal, and stated that before a list could be developed, criteria would need to be established, including: a global, rigorous process; defined criteria; and a conflict resolution mechanism.
   * Michelle Sullivan suggested hazardous chemicals should be harmonized by sector.
   * Mike Wright stated that a global list should be voluntary as one of the objectives of GHS is self classification.
           (b)	Reports on the status of implementation
Experts, observers and organizations may wish to inform the Sub-Committee about progress in the GHS implementation in their respective countries or areas of work.
	    (c)	Cooperation with other bodies or international organizations
At the time of writing no document has been submitted under this agenda item.
	          (d)	Miscellaneous
At the time of writing no document has been submitted under this agenda
   4. Programme of work for the biennium 2011 - 2012
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/8 (United States of America)
Proposed terms of reference for the dust explosion hazards correspondence group
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/11 (Netherlands)
Alignment with GHS, corrosivity criteria in Chapter 2.8
ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/17 (Secretariat)
Draft terms of reference for the work on corrosivity criteria
The Sub-Committee may wish to consider any other proposal for inclusion in its programme of work for the biennium 2011 - 2012.
   Proposed terms of reference for the dust explosion hazards correspondence group for the next biennium
   ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/8
   This paper provided an update of the activities of the correspondence group to date and proposes continuation of the work into the next biennium.

   * Michelle Sullivan inquired as to whether combustible dust issues from the US are being considered in Europe.
   * OSHA representatives responded that some countries already have systems in place, and that the Subcommittee is currently considering the proper steps to move forward with this issue.
   Comments on ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/17 -  ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/85 and on the proposal in ST/SG/AC.10/C.3/2010/10
   This paper expresses concerns about the Netherlands' proposal to amend chapter 2.8 to implement GHS alternative methods for skin corrosion in a new2.8.3 and about a correspondence group for work on corrosivity criteria.  The paper proposes alternative amendments to the Model Regulations and the GHS.

   * Michelle Sullivan found the paper to be unclear.
   * API also stated that this paper is poorly written, and that the US should request clarification.
   * Maureen Ruskin also agreed that clarification was needed on this paper.
      Informal Papers and Closing Remarks
   * Mike Wright asked that surveys which impact worker organizations, should send be sent to a wider selection of groups.
   * Paul Brigandi explained that there may be criteria regarding whom the Subcommittee can send a survey to, and suggested that groups wishing to participate in surveys should obtain observer status.
   * Derek Swick, API supported holding stakeholder meetings prior to each Subcommittee meetings. He also stated that he found the process helpful, and thought that it encouraged a candid conversation regarding the work being done by the Subcommittee.
   * Mike Wright & Robert Keifer also supported holding stakeholder meetings prior to Subcommittee meetings.

Attachments:

(1) Agenda
(2) Opening Statement
(3) API written comments


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75008-75009]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5891-013]

Deschutes Valley Water District; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Capacity Amendment of License--Article 47.
    b. Project No: 5891-013.
    c. Date Filed: November 12, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Deschutes Valley Water District (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Opal Springs Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Crooked River in
Jefferson County, Oregon and occupies lands of the United States
administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Edson Pugh, Deschutes Valley Water District,
881 SW Culver Highway, Madras, OR 97741,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Calloway,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 17, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-5891-013. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee is requesting to amend
Article 47 which was incorporated into the project license by ordering
paragraph (K) of the Order Amending License, Approving Fish Passage
Facilities, and Amending Annual Charges issued May 9, 2018.
Specifically, the applicant is seeking to amend the maximum controlled
hydraulic capacity of the project to be 2,070 cubic feet per second
(cfs), and amend the spring water and ground water accreting into the
bypass reach to be 420 cfs. The licensee is also seeking to remove the
language in the article requiring the license to verify estimates of
these values since the applicant has already completed that work.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should

so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: November 17, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25977 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Placeholder: confidential business information item

CA Strawberry Commission CUE Application for 2008

For more information please contact Aaron Levy by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19389-19391]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08198]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74650; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 1000--
Equities To Reflect That Exchange Systems Will Reject Incoming Orders
of Over 1,000,000 Shares That Are Marketable Upon Arrival

April 6, 2015.
    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 March 23, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 1000--Equities to reflect that
Exchange systems will reject incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares
that are marketable upon arrival. 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 1000--Equities (Automatic
Execution of Limit Orders Against Orders Reflected in Exchange
Published Quotation) (``Rule 1000'') to reflect that Exchange systems
will reject incoming orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are
marketable upon arrival against interest in Exchange systems.
    Currently, Exchange systems accept orders up to a maximum order
size of 25,000,000 shares.\4\ Rule 1000 provides that market and limit
orders of up to 1,000,000 shares are eligible to initiate or
participate in automatic executions on the Exchange. However, because
an order of over 1,000,000 shares in size is ineligible for automatic
execution, if such an order is marketable on arrival, the Exchange
suspends automatic executions in that security and it is auto-quoted
with a ``slow'' quote condition. When a symbol is in a ``slow'' quote
condition, its quote is not protected under Regulation NMS.\5\ Orders
for more than 1,000,000 shares that are not marketable upon arrival do
not suspend automatic executions or cause a slow quote condition.
Rather, non-marketable orders of over 1,000,000 shares in size rest on
the Exchange's limit order book and are available as liquidity to
interact with incoming contra-side interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 1000--Equities.
    \5\ Rule 611 of Regulation NMS requires that trading centers
have policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent trade
throughs on that trading center of protected quotations in NMS
Stocks. 17 CFR 242.611(a). Importantly, to be a protected quotation,
it must be an automated quotation that is the best bid or offer of
an exchange. 17 CFR 242.603(b)(57)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000 to provide that incoming
orders of over 1,000,000 shares that are marketable upon arrival would
be rejected. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to reject
marketable orders ineligible for automatic execution in order to reduce
the potential that the Exchange would suspend automatic executions and
disseminate a ``slow'' quote that permits other market centers to trade
through the Exchange's quotations in that security. In addition, the
Exchange notes that an order of such size that is marketable upon
arrival may be an order entry error, and therefore rejecting the order
puts the submitter of the order on notice of the large size of the
order.
    Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date via
Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
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 protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the Exchange believes that rejecting large orders
ineligible for automatic execution rather than triggering a suspension
of automatic executions in the relevant security would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by reducing the potential that the Exchange
would suspend automatic executions and disseminate a ``slow'' quote
that permits other market centers to trade through the Exchange's
quotations in the relevant security. The Exchange also believes that
rejecting large orders ineligible for automatic execution would assist
with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate
the risk that a large order that is marketable upon arrival may be an
order entry error, and therefore rejecting the order puts the submitter
of the order on notice of the large size of the order. For the same
reasons, the proposal is also designed to protect investors as well as
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather to prevent
unnecessary suspension of automatic executions on the Exchange's
marketplace and reduce the likelihood that large, marketable orders may
be an order entry error.

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 \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 .\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 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-NYSEMKT-2015-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-21. 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-NYSEMKT-2015-21 and should be submitted on or before May
1, 2015.

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

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08198 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31652-31655]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0121]
RIN 1625-AA11

``McCormick & Baxter'' Regulated Navigation Area, Willamette
River, Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area on
the Willamette River, Portland Oregon Captain of the Port Zone. This
action is necessary to preserve the integrity of the engineered pilot
cap placed over contaminated sediments as part of an Environmental
Protection

Agency (EPA) Superfund cleanup action at the McCormick & Baxter
Creosoting Company Superfund Site. This proposed rule is needed to
prohibit activities that would cause disturbance of pilot cap material,
which was placed to isolate and contain underlying contaminated
sediment.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard Docket
number USCG-2008-0121 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MST1 Lucia Mack, Waterways Division,
Sector Portland, OR at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0121), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0121)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

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

Background and Purpose

    The McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Company operated between 1944 and
1991, treating wood products with creosote, pentachlorohenol, and
inorganic (arsenic, copper, chromium, and zinc) preservative solutions.
Historically, process wastewaters were discharged directly to the
Willamette River, and other process wastes were dumped in several areas
of the Site. Significant concentrations of wood-treating chemicals have
been found in soil and groundwater at the site and in river sediments
adjacent to the Site. The EPA listed the Site on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1994 based on information collected by
DEQ between September 1990 and September 1992. The EPA also designated
the DEQ as the lead agency for implementing the selected remedy while
funding for remedial design and construction was primarily provided by
EPA. The DEQ implemented a number of interim removal measures between
1992 and 1994, including plant demolition, sludge and soil removals,
and extraction of creosote from the groundwater aquifers. The Record of
Decision (ROD) was issued by WPA and DEQ in April 1996 after
considering public comments on the Proposed Cleanup Plan. The remedy
addressed contaminated groundwater, soil and sediment. A component of
the groundwater remedy, initiated in 1994, consisted of an automated
creosote extraction and groundwater treatment system. However, due to
poor product recovery and high operating costs, the automated system
was discontinued in late 2000. Creosote is currently being recovered by
passive and manual methods. Approximately 6,200 gallons have been
recovered since 1991. A contingency groundwater remedy was implemented
in the summer of 2003, with the construction of a combination steel
sheet pile and soil Bentonite slurry wall surrounding 18 acres. The
purpose of the barrier wall is to prevent migration of creosote to the
Willamette River. Implementation of the soil remedy began in March 1999
with the removal of 33,000 tons of highly contaminated soil and debris.
The soil remedy was completed in September 2005 following installation
of a combination impermeable/earthen cap--the impermeable portion
covering the area within the subsurface barrier wall. The sediment
remedy was implemented in 2004 and primarily consisted of an armored
sand cap placed over 23 acres of contaminated sediment. Construction
occurred during the summers of 2004 and 2005. Sediment cap construction
performed in 2005 followed construction work performed by the City of
Portland to stabilize two high pressure sewer lines located within a
one-acre portion of the sediment cap. In

addition to the sand layer, an oil adsorptive material known as
organophyllic clay was used in two creosote seep areas. To protect the
cap from erosion, the sand and organophyllic clay were armored with a
combination of rock and articulated concrete blocks. Erosional forces
evaluated in designing the cap armoring layer included hydraulic-
induced stresses due to river currents associated with a 500-year
flood, vessel-induced propeller velocities from a tractor tug and
various sized recreational boats, wind waves associated with a 100-year
wind storm and vessel wakes associated with various boats including a
100-ft fireboat traveling at 14 knots. These forces were evaluated for
river level variations due to tidal action and flood currents.
Additionally, numerical modeling was used to analyze wave
transformation and capping of the riverbank with two feet of topsoil,
turf reinforcement matting and herbaceous vegetation. Revegetation of
the capped riverbank with native trees and shrubs took place in
February 2006 after the soil had been stabilized with the native
grasses planted in November 2004. The DEQ has requested the issuance of
this RNA in order to prohibit activities that may damage the engineered
sediment cap at the Site. Although the sediment cap is designed to
withstand a variety of anticipated erosional forces, the cap is
susceptible to damage, such as from propeller wash, deployment of barge
spuds, deployment and dragging of anchors, and grounding of large
vessels. If the engineered sediment cap were to be damaged by marine
activities, the contaminated sediments which underlie the cap could be
released to the river thereby posing an unacceptable threat to public
health and the environment.

Discussion of Rule

    This proposed rule would create a regulated navigation area (RNA)
on all waters of the Willamette River encompassed by a line commencing
at 45[deg]34'33'' N, 122[deg]44'17'' W to 45[deg]34'32'' N,
122[deg]44'18'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'24'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'27'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N,
122[deg]44'36'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'37'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'38'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W to 45[deg]34'39'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'44'' N, 122[deg]44'51'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'53'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'51'' W thence to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'46'' W to
45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'45'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'46'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'48'' N, 122[deg]44'40'' W thence to 45[deg]34'48'' N,
122[deg]44'38'' W and along the shoreline to 45[deg]34'46'' N,
122[deg]44'39'' W and then back to the point of origin. Vessels are
prohibited from anchoring, spudding, dredging, laying cable, dragging,
trawling, conducting salvage operations. Operation of commercial
vessels of any size, operating recreational vessels greater than 30
feet in length, and operating other vessels in excess of no wake speed
or the minimum speed needed to maintain steerage is prohibited.
    Violations of the RNA regulations are punishable by civil penalties
(not to exceed $35,500 per violation), criminal penalties (imprisonment
for not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $250,000) and in
rem liability against the offending vessel.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of
this regulation will not be significant based on the fact there will be
minimal if any effect on the navigable waterway around the proposed
regulated area due to the regulated navigation area's proximity to the
shore. The local maritime community will be informed of the regulated
navigation area via marine informational Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the
Willamette River. This proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
regulated navigation area is limited in size leaving ample room for
vessels to navigate around the area. Vessels engaged in commerce with
the existing refueling pipeline located within the site should not be
affected by this regulation in those activities but are advised to
minimize potential impacts such as anchoring, wake scouring, and
dragging in the vicinity of the pilot cap.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact MST1 Lucia Mack,
Waterways Division, Sector Portland, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.1D which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to have
a significant effect on the human environment. There are no factors in
this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under
section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. A preliminary ``Environmental
Analysis Check List'' supporting this determination is available in the
docket under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.1323 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1323  Regulated Navigation Area: Willamette River Portland,
Oregon Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA):
All waters of the Willamette River encompassed by a line commencing at
45[deg]34'33'' N, 122[deg]44'17'' W to 45[deg]34'32'' N,
122[deg]44'18'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'24'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'27'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N,
122[deg]44'36'' W thence to 45[deg]34'35'' N, 122[deg]44'37'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'38'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W to 45[deg]34'39'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'44'' N, 122[deg]44'51'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'53'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'51'' W thence to 45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'46'' W to
45[deg]34'45'' N, 122[deg]44'45'' W thence to 45[deg]34'47'' N,
122[deg]44'43'' W thence to 45[deg]34'46'' N, 122[deg]44'42'' W thence
to 45[deg]34'48'' N, 122[deg]44'40'' W thence to 45[deg]34'48'' N,
122[deg]44'38'' W and along the shoreline to 45[deg]34'46'' N,
122[deg]44'39'' W and back to the point of origin. All coordinates
reference 1983 North American Datum (NAD 83).
    (b) Regulations. (1) Anchoring, spudding, dredging, laying cable,
dragging, trawling, conducting salvage operations, operating commercial
vessels of any size, and operating recreational vessels greater than 30
feet in length are prohibited in the regulated area.
    (2) All vessels transiting or accessing the regulated area shall do
so at no wake speed or at the minimum speed necessary to maintain
steerage.

    Dated: May 6, 2008.
J.P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
 [FR Doc. E8-12147 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P