[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 39023]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15491]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 10b-10; SEC File No. 270-389, OMB Control No. 3235-0444.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of
the previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
10b-10 (17 CFR 240.10b-10) under the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 10b-10 requires broker-dealers to convey basic trade
information to customers regarding their securities transactions. This
information includes: the date and time of the transaction, the
identity and number of shares bought or sold, and the trading capacity
of the broker-dealer. Depending on the trading capacity of the broker-
dealer, Rule 10b-10 requires the disclosure of commissions as well as
mark-up and mark-down information. For transactions in debt securities,
Rule 10b-10 requires the disclosure of redemption and yield
information. Rule 10b-10 potentially applies to all of the
approximately 5,178 firms registered with the Commission that effect
transactions on behalf of customers.
    Based on information provided by registered broker-dealers to the
Commission in FOCUS Reports, the Commission staff estimates that on
average, registered broker-dealers process approximately 1.4 billion
order tickets per month for transactions on behalf of customers. Each
order ticket representing a transaction effected on behalf of a
customer results in one confirmation. Therefore, the Commission staff
estimates that approximately 16.8 billion confirmations are sent to
customers annually. The confirmations required by Rule 10b-10 are
generally processed through automated systems. It takes approximately
30 seconds to generate and send a confirmation. Accordingly, the
Commission estimates that broker-dealers spend 140 million hours per
year complying with Rule 10b-10.
    The amount of confirmations sent and the cost of sending each
confirmation varies from firm to firm. Smaller firms generally send
fewer confirmations than larger firms because they effect fewer
transactions. The Commission staff estimates the costs of producing and
sending a paper confirmation, including postage to be approximately 54
cents. The Commission staff also estimates that the cost of producing
and sending a wholly electronic confirmation is approximately 39 cents.
Based on informal discussions with industry participants as well as no-
action positions taken in this area, the staff estimates that broker-
dealers used electronic confirmations for approximately 35 percent of
transactions. Based on these calculations, Commission staff estimates
that 10,920,000,000 paper confirmations are mailed each year at a cost
of $5,896,800,000. Commission staff also estimates that 5,880,000,000
wholly electronic confirmations are sent each year at a cost of
$2,293,200,000. Accordingly, Commission staff estimates that total
annual cost associated with generating and delivering to investors the
information required under Rule 10b-10 would be $8,190,000,000.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information subject to the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: June 24, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15491 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61266-61268]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21256]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78721; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 9217 To
Add a Provision and Related Fines Addressing Trade-Through Violations

August 30, 2016.
    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 August 17, 2016, 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9217 to add a provision and
related fines addressing trade-through violations. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the filing is to amend Rule 9217 (Violations
Appropriate for Disposition Under Rule 9216(b)) to add a provision and
related fines addressing trade-throughs. The proposed amendment would
correct an oversight in not including trade-throughs when the Exchange
adopted Rule 9217 in connection with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan (the ``Linkage Plan'').
    When the Linkage Plan was adopted in 2009, the Exchange filed and
received approval for conforming rules,\4\ including modifications to
Rule 476A (Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules) to
provide for certain violations of Rule 990NY, Rule 991NY, and Rule
992NY to be enforced under the Minor Rule Plan (``MRP'').\5\ However,
the Exchange did not adopt a provision as part of the MRP regarding the
avoidance of trade-throughs as required by Rule 991NY(a). Thus, when
the Exchange adopted Rule 9217, it did not include violations of trade-
throughs, which was likely an oversight because the Exchange simply
``retain[ed] its currently applicable list of minor rule violations and
accompanying fine levels.'' \6\ The Exchange notes that the rules of
other options exchanges, including the BOX Options Exchange LLC
(``BOX'') and Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''), include as
part of their minor rule plans provisions and related fines for trade-
through violations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60520 (August 18,
2009), 74 FR 43176 (August 26, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-19).
    \5\ The Exchange's MRP fosters compliance with applicable rules
and also helps to reduce the number and extent of rule violations
committed by ATP Holders and associated persons. The prompt
imposition of a financial penalty helps to quickly educate and
improve the conduct of ATP Holders and associated persons that have
engaged in inadvertent or otherwise minor violations of the
Exchange's rules. By promptly imposing a meaningful financial
penalty for such violations, the MRP focuses on correcting conduct
before it gives rise to more serious enforcement action.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77241 (February 26,
2016), 81 FR 11311 (March 3, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-30). The
Exchange is not proposing to amend Rule 476A, which is part of
Section 9A, Legacy Disciplinary Rules, because that rule applies
``only to a proceeding for which a Charge Memorandum has been filed
with the hearing board under Rule 476(d) prior to April 15, 2016,
until such proceeding is final; otherwise, the Rule 9000 Series
shall apply.'' See Rule 476A (emphasis added).
    \7\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69259 (March
29, 2013), 78 FR 20706 (April 5, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-17); 62602 (July
29, 2010) (regarding BOX Rule 12140(13); [sic] 75 FR 47672 (August
6, 2010) (SR-CBOE-2010-69) (regarding [sic] and CBOE Rule
17.50(g)(12)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this oversight, and to align with the rules of other
options exchanges, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9217 to adopt
``[f]ailure to comply with the requirements for avoidance of trade-
throughs set forth in Rule 991NY(a)'' as MRP Violation 35 and to add
provision 35 to the Recommended Fine Schedule. As proposed, when an ATP
Holder engages in a pattern or practice of trading through better
prices available on other exchanges, the Exchange would recommend a 1st
Level Fine of $500; a 2nd Level Fine of $1,000; and a 3rd Level Fine of
$2,500. The Exchange notes that these fines are consistent with those
adopted by competing options exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \9\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\10\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system. The proposed rule
change is also consistent with Sections 6(b)(6) and 6(b)(7) of the Act
because it would promote the Exchange's ability to appropriately
discipline its market participants and provide fair procedures when
addressing violations of Exchange rules that are deemed by the Exchange
to be minor in nature.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6) and (7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because
addressing violations of trade-throughs in Rule 9217 would align
Exchange rules with rules of other options exchanges that likewise have
trade-throughs as part of their minor rule plans.\12\ In addition, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote the
efficient use and reasonable allocation of Exchange resources such that
trade-through violations could be dealt with via the MRP allowing the
Exchange to devote more time and effort to more serious violations. The
proposed change would also strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry
out its oversight responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization
and reinforce its enforcement functions. Further, the Exchange believes
the proposal would provide notice to, and fair procedures for the
disciplining of, ATP Holders and persons associated with ATP Holders
for violations of trade-throughs and would, in turn, protect investors
and the investing public. The proposed changes are non-discriminatory
in that they would be applied equally to all ATP Holders in a similar
situation. The proposed changes also permit the Exchange to levy
progressively larger fines against a repeat offender, in a manner and
an amount consistent with those applied for violations on other
markets.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 7.
    \13\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed changes would promote consistency in
minor rule violations and respective SRO reporting obligations,
resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance
for common permit holders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose

any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change would align
Exchange rules with rules of other options exchanges and would
therefore promote consistency in minor rule violations and respective
SRO reporting obligations, resulting in less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance and facilitating performance of
regulatory functions.\14\ The proposed rule change is not intended to
address competitive issues, but rather it is designed to provide notice
to, and fair procedures for the disciplining of, ATP Holders and
persons associated with ATP Holders for violations of trade-throughs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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)(iii) of the Act \15\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change will become operative on filing. The Exchange stated that the
proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to align its rules with
those of competing options exchanges, without delay, and would also
strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight
responsibilities as a self-regulatory organization and reinforce its
enforcement functions. The Exchange also stated that waiver of the
operative delay would promote regulatory clarity and consistency,
thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor
protection. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-NYSEMKT-2016-75 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-NYSEMKT-2016-75. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-75, and should
be submitted on or before September 27, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21256 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73916-73917]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Extended
Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 24, 2013, vol. 78, no. 185, pages 58598-58599.
The FAA collects information to ensure that aircraft for long range
flights are equipped to minimize diversions, to preclude and prevent
diversions in remote areas, and to ensure that all personnel are
trained to minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0718.
    Title: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.

    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: A final rule published on January 16, 2007 (72 FR 1807)
codified previous practices that permitted certificated air carriers to
operate two-engine airplanes over long-range routes and extended the
procedures for extended operations to all passenger-carrying operations
on routes beyond 180 minutes from an alternate airport. This option is
voluntary for operators and manufacturers. The FAA uses this
information collection to ensure that aircraft for long range flights
are equipped to minimize diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions
in remote areas, and to ensure that all personnel are trained to
minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.
    Respondents: 18 operators and manufacturers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 7 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 253,384 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-29228 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 68115]
[DOCID:fr09no05-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Filing and Information Services,
Washington, DC 20549.

Extension:
    Rule 30b1-5, SEC File No. 270-520, OMB Control No. 3235-0577.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)(``Act'') the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 30b1-5 under
the Investment Company Act of 1940, Quarterly Filing of Schedule of
Portfolio Holdings of Registered Management Investment Companies.''
    Rule 30b1-5 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 requires
registered management investment companies, other than small business
investment companies registered on Form N-5, to file a quarterly report
via the Commission's EDGAR system on Form N-Q, not more than sixty
calendar days after the close of each first and third fiscal quarter,
containing their complete portfolio holdings.
    The Commission estimates that there are 9,850 management investment
companies and series that are governed by the rule. The Commission
estimates that the annual burden associated with the rule is 1 hour per
affected investment company or series. The total burden hours for rule
30b1-5 is 9,850 per year in the aggregate (9,850 responses x 1 hour per
response). Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a
representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and
forms.
    The collection of information under rule 30b1-5 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 30b1-5 is not kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    General comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503; or e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 28, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22293 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 2004 TO: Effluent Guidelines Planning Record FROM: M. Ahmar Siddiqui RE: Telephone discussion regarding PBSTs with George Papadopoulos, EPA Region 1 As part of its study of the Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals ( PBST, SIC 5171) industry, EPA contacted permit writers and compliance officials to discuss permitting and other issues unique to PBSTs. On April 12, 2004, Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui contacted Mr. George Papadopoulos of EPA Region 1 to discuss these facilities. The telephone script, which served as a guide to the conversation, is part of another memorandum to the Effluent Guidelines Planning Record ( Summary of discussions with permit writers about PBST facilities, April 29, 2004).

When asked about wastewater discharges at PBSTs, Mr. Papadopoulos said that all facilities have stormwater discharges but that the discharge of tank bottoms waster was not allowed. He noted that contaminated stormwater is treated by oil/ water separation and that the primary pollutants found were BTEX, MTBE, and oil and grease. He said that Region 1 was uncertain about what to do with PAHs, because of problems with detections using current methods. He said that there were very few detects of PAHs and that the Region is considering using TPH as an indicator.

Mr. Papadopoulos was uncertain about the use of oil refineries to treat PBST tank bottoms waters, a practice that API asserts is widespread.

As to the question of individual operation driving pollutant loads, Mr. Papadopoulos stated that this is entirely dependent on how well the PBST operates. He went on to say that treatment is largely limited to oil/ water separation, though the Exxon Everett PBST, asignificant reporter in the 2000 PCS database, may have more extensive treatment. He also stated that, in Massachusetts, most facilities treat their wastewaters before discharging them.

Mr. Papadopoulos also said that all facilities have SPCC and stormwater pollution prevention plans. He was not sure if any particular economic factors were driving the use of pollution prevention methods. He also said that all permits in Massachusetts are developed on an individual basis due to the different products handled by the facilities.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9712]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Apple, Inc.; Project No. 14430-004]

Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed January 9, 2014, Apple, Inc. informed the
Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Monroe Drop
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14430, originally issued August 1,
2014,\1\ has been transferred from Monroe Hydro, LLC to Apple, Inc. The
proposed project would be located on North Unit Irrigations District's
main irrigation canal near the town of Culver in Jefferson County,
Oregon. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 148 FERC ] 62,098, Order Granting Exemption from Licensing
(Conduit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Apple, Inc. is now the exemptee for the Monroe Drop
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14430. All correspondence should be
forwarded to: Apple, Inc., Attn: Mr. Nathan Fleisher, 1 Infinite Loop,
MS: 119-REF, Cupertino, CA 95014.

    Dated: February 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03745 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 3129]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2009-07]

Petitions for Exemption; Summaries of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains summaries of two petitions seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summaries is intended to
affect the legal status of the petitions or their final dispositions.

DATES: Comments on these petitions must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before January 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0799 or Docket Number FAA-2008-0800 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette K. Kovite, ANM-113, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056,
phone-425-227-1262<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 2009.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0799.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  26.47 and 26.49.
    Description of Relief Sought: Exemption from the damage tolerance
data requirements of Sec. Sec.  26.47 and 26.49 for alterations and
repairs to alterations. The exemption requested is for certain
supplemental type certificates installed on Boeing Model 747 and 757
military commercial derivative airplanes.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0800.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  26.47 and 26.49.
    Description of Relief Sought: Exemption from the damage tolerance
data requirements of Sec. Sec.  26.47 and 26.49 for alterations and
repairs to alterations. The exemption requested is for certain
supplemental type certificates installed on the following military
airplanes: Boeing Models 737-2NI, 767-27C, 767-2FK, and 767-2EY.

 [FR Doc. E9-865 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65739-65742]
[DOCID:fr05no08-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0571; FRL-8386-1]

Silane, trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis
products with silica; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a

tolerance for residues of silane, trimethoxy[3-
(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica (CAS Reg.
No. 68584-82-7); when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation under 40 CFR 180.960. Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001
G St., NW, Suit, 500 Washington, DC 20001 as U.S. agent for Eka
Chemicals AB, 455 80 Bobus, Sweden submitted a petition to EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of silane, trimethoxy[3- (oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis
products with silica on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 5, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 5, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0571. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Samek, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0571. in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January 5, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0571, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47184) (FRL-8376-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7397) filed
by Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW, Suit, 500 Washington, DC
20001 as U.S. agent for Eka Chemicals AB, 455 80 Bobus, Sweden. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of silane,
trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with
silica; CAS Reg. No. 68584-82-7. That notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the
petitioner's request. The Agency received one comment. One comment was
received from a private citizen who opposed the authorization to sell
any pesticide that leaves a residue on food.
    The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that
some individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be
allowed. However, under the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is
authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or

exemptions where persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Silane, trimethoxy[3-
(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica conforms to
the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 640,000 daltons is greater
than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000.
    Thus, silane, trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis
products with silica meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered
low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria
in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary,
inhalation, or dermal exposure to silane, trimethoxy[3-
(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that silane, trimethoxy[3-
(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica could be
present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking
water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The
number average MW of silane, trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-,
hydrolysis products with silica is 640,000 daltons. Generally, a
polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since silane,
trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica
conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no
concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios
that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a
tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' For the purposes
of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that silane,
trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances, based on the
anticipated absence of mammalian toxicity. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless

EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for
infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of silane,
trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with
silica, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk.
For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of silane, trimethoxy[3-
(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
silane, trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products
with silica nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been
established for any food crops at this time.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of silane,
trimethoxy[3-(oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis products with silica
from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts or local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 27, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Silane, trimethoxy[3-                       68584-82-7
 (oxiranylmethoxy)propyl]-, hydrolysis
 products with silica, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu),
 640,000.
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-26396 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S