W.H. Sammis Plant Environmental Retrofits
FirstEnergy Corp.
Stratton, Ohio
Project Overview
The W.H. Sammis plant is the largest of FirstEnergy's coal-fired electric generating facilities in Ohio. The plant consists of seven coal-fired units totaling 2,220 MW and is located along the Ohio River.
In 2005, FirstEnergy embarked on one of the largest environmental retrofit projects in its history. This renovation included new selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems and wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) equipment. The project enabled FirstEnergy to significantly reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Upon completion of the five-year project, Platts Global Energy recognized the W.H. Sammis project as 2010 Construction Project of the Year.
Download The PDF
The key components of the project involved adding two SCR systems and three wet FGD absorbers to the existing plant layout. One of the big challenges was the limited space available at the site to accommodate the new equipment. The plant is located on a congested, narrow strip of land bounded by foothills to the west and the Ohio River to the east. In addition, a state highway also runs along the exterior of the plant. Due to the congested site, all three wet FGD absorbers were located south of the plant, in what was a parking lot. The absorbers were shop fabricated in Mississippi as large alloy modules weighing up to 290 tons each and transported by barge to the job site. Another significant project challenge was removing the existing electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and installing the new SCR equipment in the space previously occupied by the abandoned ESP.
FirstEnergy required that all equipment be operational by the end of 2010. This required extensive planning, design and equipment delivery coordination to meet the planned installation schedule. Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) and its subsidiary, Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co., Inc. (BWCC), designed the equipment for constructability, which played a pivotal role in meeting FirstEnergy's project objectives.

Unit 6 SCR reactor under construction.
Project scope
SCR systems installed on Units 6 and 7; 2 x 600 MW coal-fired units
B&W had full engineer, procure and construct (EPC) responsibility for the SCR systems.
 Demolition of existing precipitators
 Concrete foundations including micropiles
 3,500 tons of structural steel for main SCR support, platforms and walkways
 Relocate flash tanks, piping and existing electrical
 New electrical motor control centers, switchgear, controls and wiring
 Reactors, catalyst and flues
 Ammonia injection system, piping and valves
 Ammonia bulk railroad unloading facility, storage tanks with foundations, transport pumps and associated piping
 Railroad bed and tracks to the ammonia unloading facility
 Insulation, lagging and architectural siding

SCR motor control centers.
Wet FGD systems installed on Units 1 through 7; 2,220 MW coal-fired units
BWCC installed the wet FGD systems supplied by B&W.
 Three shop modularized alloy wet FGD absorber towers
 Limestone milling and slurry preparation system that includes 15 slurry pumps and two ball mill systems
 Four oxidation air blowers
 Gypsum dewatering system that includes hydroclones and belt filters
 Auxiliary storage tank system for expanded slurry capacity
 Auxiliary tank for makeup water and fire water
 Sulfur trioxide (SO3) mitigation system
 Bechtel provided balance of plant for the remaining wet FGD scope
Plant information
 Plant location: Stratton, Ohio
 Fuel: Pulverized coal
 Unit 1: 180 MW, Foster Wheeler front-wall fired
 Unit 2: 180 MW, Foster Wheeler front-wall fired
 Unit 3: 180 MW, Foster Wheeler front-wall fired
 Unit 4: 180 MW, Foster Wheeler front-wall fired
 Unit 5: 300 MW, B&W opposed-wall fired
 Unit 6: 600 MW, B&W opposed-wall fired
 Unit 7: 600 MW, B&W opposed-wall fired
 Key project milestones
SCR project
 Contract award date: May 1999
 Start of engineering: January 2005
 Start of construction: June 2006
 Commercial operation:
- April 2010 for Unit 6,
- May 2010 for Unit 7
FGD project
 Contract award date: January 2006
 Start of construction: March 2008
 Commercial operation: January 2010

Completed SCR inside building
                            Highlights and Results

Extensive three-dimensional modeling was used to design the new SCR reactor; structural support steel; connecting flues; ammonia vaporization, dilution and injection equipment; and other auxiliary equipment within the space previously occupied by the abandoned ESP.

The SCR design and material delivery schedule were tailored to meet the construction installation plan. Unlike many other SCR systems where large modules could be used to maximize shop and ground assembly techniques, these units required a more traditional construction method.

Three wet scrubber absorbers are used to handle the flue gas of seven boilers.
Shop fabrication of absorber modules facilitated reduced construction costs and minimized use of limited laydown space at the site.

The SCR and FGD projects met every construction schedule objective. The commissioned units have met performance guarantees.

Ammonia storage tanks and rail station, along with the necessary pumps, valves and piping were all part of BWCC's balance of plant responsibilities.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 61 (Monday, March 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17502-17504]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06159]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0786; FRL-10006-43-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Infrastructure for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Oklahoma for the
2015 Ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Oklahoma's October 25, 2018, submittal addressed how the
existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the 2015 O3 NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). The i-
SIP ensures that the Oklahoma SIP is adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA for this NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0786. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, Texas 75270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Todd, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX
75270,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Todd or Mr. Bill
Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
January 2, 2020 proposal (85 FR 54). In that document we proposed to
approve the Oklahoma SIP for compliance with CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)(A) through (C), 110(a)(2)(E) through (H) and 110(a)(2)(J)
through (M). We also proposed approving the Oklahoma SIP for compliance
with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Interference with Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Interstate Pollution
Abatement (which refers to CAA section 126) and International Air
Pollution (which refers to CAA section 115). We are not acting on the
remaining portions of the October 25, 2018, submittal addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which will be
addressed in a subsequent action. We did not receive any comments
regarding our proposal.

II. Final Action

    We are approving Oklahoma's October 28, 2018, Infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS as it applies to CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration portion), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii),
110(a)(2)(E) through (H) and 110(a)(2)(J) through (M). The submission
addressed how Oklahoma's existing SIP provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 29, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.

    Dated: March 19, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LL--Oklahoma

0
2. In Sec.  52.1920 (e), the table titled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP'' is
amended by adding an entry for ``Infrastructure for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS'' at the end of the table.
    The amendment reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

             EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Applicable  geographic
     Name of SIP provision          or  nonattainment     State submittal/  EPA approval date       Comments
                                          area             effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure for the 2015      Statewide.............  October 25, 2018.  3/30/2020,         Does not address
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                                [Insert Federal    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(
                                                                             Register           I). No action on
                                                                             citation].         110(a)(2)(D)
                                                                                (i)(II)
                                                                                (visibility
                                                                                portion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-06159 Filed 3-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57824-57826]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23376]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0819; FRL-10001-49-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Revisions to Sulfur Dioxide Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia
through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) through a
letter dated July 31, 2018. EPA is approving into the SIP a
modification to Georgia's Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation. The
SIP revision updates Georgia's air quality standards for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) to be consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving the SIP revision because the change
is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and Federal
regulations.

DATES: This rule will be effective November 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0819. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
NAAQS. The revised SO2 NAAQS is an hourly standard of 75
parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The June 22, 2010
action that promulgated the revised primary SO2 NAAQS also
addressed revocation of the 1971 24-hour and annual primary
SO2 NAAQS. See 75 FR 35520. Pursuant to the June 22, 2010
action and 40 CFR 50.4, the 1971 primary SO2 annual and 24-
hour NAAQS will continue to apply in an area until one year after the
effective date of the designation of that area for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. See 42 U.S.C. 7407; 40 CFR 50.17.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR at 35581. No areas in Georgia were designated as
nonattainment for the 1971 standards at the time of promulgation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 annual and 24-hour SO2
standards. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, in the July 31, 2018,\2\ SIP submittal, Georgia
revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(b) to provide clarity that the 1971
standard continues to apply in Georgia.\3\ Specifically, the changes
reflect the historical and current NAAQS for SO2 and update
the former primary SO2 NAAQS for the 1971 annual and 24-hour
ambient air quality standards to be consistent with the Federal
regulations. The SIP submission can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA received the SIP revision on August 2, 2018.
    \3\ See 40 CFR 81.311 for designated areas in the State of
Georgia for the 2010 SO2 standard. EPA notes that Floyd
County is the only county in Georgia that has not yet been
designated for the 2010 SO2 standard, and thus is still
subject to the 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards. See
81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016); 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 2, 2019
(84 FR 31540), EPA proposed to approve the revision to the Georgia air
quality rules addressing Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), Ambient Air Standards,
into the Georgia SIP.\4\ Comments on the NPRM were due on or before
August 1, 2019. EPA received no comments on the proposed action.
Consistent with the NPRM, which contains additional detail on the
submittal, EPA's analysis, and EPA's rationale for approval, EPA is now
taking final action to approve the above-referenced revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As discussed in the NPRM, EPA received several SIP revisions
from Georgia through the July 31, 2018, letter and is considering
action on the additional SIP revisions in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(4), Ambient Air Standards, paragraph (b) Sulfur Dioxide,
State-effective July 23, 2018, which updates the former primary
SO2 NAAQS for the 1971 annual and 24-hour ambient air
quality standards to be consistent with the Federal regulations. EPA
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the

SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the State of Georgia's July
31, 2018, SIP submission revising Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), Ambient Air
Standards, paragraph (b) Sulfur Dioxide. This revision is consistent
with the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this final action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 30, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 10, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(c), is amended under Emission Standards by revising
the entry for ``391-3-1-.02(4)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         State citation             Title/subject    effective date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(4).................  Ambient Air              7/23/2018  10/29/2019,         Except paragraphs (a),
                                  Standards.                          [Insert citation    (c), (d), (e), (f),
                                                                      of publication].    (g), and (h), approved
                                                                                on 12/4/2018 with a
                                                                                State-effective date
                                                                                of 7/20/2017.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-23376 Filed 10-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38895-38898]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16936]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0438; FRL-9997-72-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Arkansas; Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the
portion of Arkansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
addressing the CAA requirements pertaining to the ``good neighbor''
provision of the CAA for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The ``good neighbor''
provision requires each state's implementation plan contain adequate
provisions prohibiting emissions which will contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in other states. EPA is proposing to determine that consistent
with the CAA, Arkansas' SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that
air emissions in Arkansas will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 9,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2019-0438, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact Ms. Nevine
Salem,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas. 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 at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
TX 75270,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Salem or Mr.
Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

A. General

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a three-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ The CAA requires states to submit, within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the
applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Infrastructure SIP Requirements

    Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to make SIP submissions to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' These submissions must meet the various
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), as applicable.

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
include adequate provisions prohibiting any emissions activity in the
state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interferes with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The
EPA sometimes refers to these requirements as prong 1 (contribute
significantly to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with
maintenance), or jointly as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA.
Further information can be found in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this rulemaking action, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2019-0438.

II. Summary of Arkansas' SIP Submittal and EPA's Evaluation

A. Arkansas' SIP Submittal

    On March 24, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) submitted an infrastructure SIP (i-SIP) addressing how the
existing Arkansas SIP provides for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\ On February 14,
2018 (83 FR 6470), the EPA approved most elements of Arkansas i-SIP
submittal, but we took no action regarding the interstate transport
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interference with
maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality
status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any
NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the
EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times.
Future available information may include, and is not limited to,
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the
EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21,
2015) and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies,
and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The portions of Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing
interstate transport (for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) discuss how
Arkansas will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. ADEQ evaluated SO2 monitoring
data within Arkansas and its surrounding states (Oklahoma, Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee), and concluded that its
emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. In its submittal Arkansas described several existing
SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific
measures, including permitting requirements, that apply to
SO2 sources within the state.

B. EPA's Evaluation

    For this CAA Section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) evaluation of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, EPA conducted a weight of evidence analysis for
each prong separately,\3\ including available information such as air
quality, emission sources, modeling and emission trends in Arkansas and
the adjacent nearby states that border Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-911 (D.C. Cir.
2008), the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must
give prong 2 ``independent significance'' from prong 1 by evaluating
the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while
currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation--Contribute Significantly to Nonattainment
    Prong 1 of the ``good neighbor'' provisions requires states' plans
to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. ADEQ confirms in its
submission that Arkansas' SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
sources and other types of emission activities within the State from
contributing significantly to nonattainment in other states with
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. The EPA's
evaluation \4\ of whether Arkansas has met its Prong 1 transport

obligations was accomplished by considering these factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A detailed review of EPA's evaluation of emissions, air
monitoring data, other technical information, and rationale for
proposed approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS may be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) attached to this
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) SO2 ambient air quality and emissions trends for
Arkansas and neighboring states;
    (2) Potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from
certain facilities \5\ in Arkansas on neighboring states based on
available air dispersion modeling results of SO2 sources in
Arkansas and surrounding states and proximity analysis;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions
source. Therefore, the EPA selected a spatial scale with dimensions
up to 50 km from point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Analysis of the relationship of Arkansas sources with monitors
in adjacent states which have recorded elevated SO2
concentrations;
    (4) Arkansas' SIP-approved regulations specific to SO2
emissions and permit requirements; and,
    (5) Other SIP-approved or federally enforceable regulations which
may reduce SO2 emissions either directly or indirectly.
    Based on EPA's analysis and evaluation of Arkansas' March 24, 2017
SIP submittal addressing the requirements of prong 1 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement, we agree with Arkansas' conclusion that
the existing Arkansas SIP is adequate to prevent sources in the state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment in another state with
respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA proposes to
determine that Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP submittal satisfies the
requirements of Prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This
proposed determination is based on the following considerations:
     There are no monitors recording violations of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS located in Arkansas or within 50 km of its border.
Additionally, all monitors within 50 km of the Arkansas border have
design values (DV) \6\ that are well below the 75 ppb standard and are
unlikely to violate the standard in the future, indicating no potential
concern for Prong 1. Current DVs for Arkansas' AQS SO2
monitors within 50 km of another state's border have remained well
below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS from 2015-2017; similarly;
SO2 monitors for neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas,
Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas have 2017
DVs below 2010 1-hour NAAQS standards;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The design value is the 3-year average of the 99th
percentile 1-hour daily maximums at a monitor. A control strategy
should be designed to bring the value to attainment of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Modeling for the two Arkansas' Data Requirements Rule
(DRR) sources \7\ within 50 km of an adjacent state's border estimates
impacts below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and modeling for
the DRR sources in surrounding states within 50 km of Arkansas
indicates that areas around these sources do not violate the 2010
SO2 NAAQS;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA promulgated air
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
required state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted greater than 2,000 tons per year (tpy) of
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally-
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their
annual SO2 emissions to 2,000 tpy or less, or provide
documentation that the sources have been shut down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Significant downward SO2 emissions trends in
Arkansas and its surrounding states (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana,
Missouri, and Tennessee), when considered together with the other
factors discussed as part of EPA's weight of evidence analysis, further
decreases the probability that the State's sources are significantly
contributing to other states' ability to attain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS;
     An analysis of Arkansas sources emitting over 100 tons of
SO2 in 2017 show that these sources will not combine with
emissions from the nearby sources in neighboring states to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in those states. These analyses show the
nearby sources have been modeled to show compliance of the 2010
standard or the modeling of the nearby sources included the Arkansas
sources as background concentration or the Arkansas sources were well
beyond 50 km from the adjacent states making it unlikely that Arkansas
sources will contribute significantly to nonattainment in those states;
and
     EPA also evaluated the most recent monitoring data for DRR
monitors located in states adjacent to Arkansas and within 50 km of the
state's border.\8\ There are three monitors that fall into this
category, one in Oklahoma and two in Missouri. The Oklahoma monitor's
measurements meet the standard by a wide margin. So, Arkansas sources
are not contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance
at that monitor. The monitors in Missouri recorded exceedances of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for 2018, the only complete year of data. The
nearest Arkansas sources, however, are of relatively small size (less
than 300 tpy) and beyond the chosen 50 km spatial scale. Furthermore,
the location of the Arkansas sources relative to Missouri DRR sources
and the Missouri monitors that are recording exceedances are such that
transport from the Arkansas sources could not significantly contribute
to the monitors (or areas around the monitors) at the same time as the
DRR sources are having their maximum impact. Therefore, the Arkansas
sources will not have a significant impact on the measured exceedances;
and,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ There are five DRR monitored sources within 50 km of
Arkansas the border. Two DRR sources are in Arkansas (Flint Creek
Power Plan, in Benton County, Arkansas and Plum Point Energy Station
in Mississippi County, Arkansas). Three DRR sources are outside of
Arkansas (GRDA Power Plant in Mayes, Oklahoma, Noranda Aluminum Inc
and New Madrid Power Plant Marston both in New Madrid, Missouri).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Current Arkansas' statutes, SIP-approved and federal
emissions control regulations will continue to adequately control
SO2 emissions from sources within Arkansas.
    Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal,
the summary of EPA's evaluation, and EPA's supplemental Prong 1
analysis given in the TSD for this action, EPA proposes to find that
sources within Arkansas will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
2. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
    Prong 2 of the ``good neighbor'' provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. For the Prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the
SO2 emissions trends for Arkansas, evaluated air quality
data, and assessed how future sources of SO2 are addressed
through existing SIP-approved and federally enforceable regulations. As
discussed in more detail in the TSD, current available modeling for
areas in other states within 50 km of the Arkansas border show
attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS supporting that
sources within Arkansas will not interfere with neighboring states'
ability to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Emissions
over time are not anticipated to increase relative to the baseline
emissions modeled. EPA believes that federal and state regulations and
statutes directly and indirectly reduced emissions of SO2 in
Arkansas and help to ensure that the State does not interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. SO2 emissions
from future major modifications and new major sources will be addressed
by Arkansas' SIP-approved major NSR regulations

described in more detail in the TSD. In addition, Arkansas has a SIP-
approved minor NSR permit program addressing small emission sources of
SO2. The permitting regulations contained within these
programs are designed to ensure that emissions from these activities
will not interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in
Arkansas or any other state.
    EPA proposes to determine that Arkansas' March 24, 2017 SIP
submittal satisfies the requirements of Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the following
considerations:
     Statewide SO2 emissions from 2000 to 2017 in
Arkansas have declined significantly and are expected to continue to
decline, tending to reduce background concentrations in neighboring
states;
     Current Arkansas statutes and SIP-approved measures and
federal emissions control programs adequately control SO2
emissions from sources within Arkansas;
     Arkansas' SIP-approved PSD and minor source NSR permit
programs will address future new and modified SO2 sources
above major and minor permitting thresholds;
     Current 2015-2017 DVs for Air Quality System (AQS) \9\
SO2 monitors both in Arkansas within 50 km of another
state's border and in neighboring states (Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana,
Missouri and Tennessee) within 50 km of Arkansas' border are below the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Air Quality System (AQS) contains ambient air pollution
data collected by EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies from over thousands of monitors. AQS also contains
meteorological data, descriptive information about each monitoring
station (including its geographic location and its operator), and
data quality assurance/quality control information. AQS data is used
to assess air quality, assist in attainment/non-attainment
designations, evaluate State Implementation Plans for non-attainment
areas, perform modeling for permit review analysis, and prepare
reports for congress as mandated by the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Available modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of
Arkansas' border both within the State and in neighboring states
demonstrates that Arkansas' larger point sources of SO2 do
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in another state.
    Based on the analysis provided by Arkansas in its SIP submittal,
EPA's summary of its evaluation, and EPA's supplemental Prong 2
analysis given in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action,
EPA proposes to find that sources within Arkansas will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the remaining portions of the Arkansas'
March 24, 2017 SIP submittal addressing interstate transport for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as these portions meet the
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) of the CAA. Based on the EPA's
analysis of the state's submittal and the factors described in this
document and the TSD, EPA proposes to determine Arkansas' SIP contains
adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions within Arkansas will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, addressing Arkansas' interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: August 1, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-16936 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4917-4918]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01243]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68675, File No. SR-FINRA-2012-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish
Optional TRACE Data Delivery Services and Related Fees

 January 16, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On November 30, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish optional TRACE data delivery services
and related fees. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 13, 2012.\3\ The Commission received
no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68387 (December 7,
2012), 77 FR 74249 (December 13, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-053) (the
``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA utilizes the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine
(``TRACE'') to collect from its members and to publicly disseminate
information on transactions in eligible fixed income securities. The
FINRA Automated Data Delivery System (``FINRA ADDS'') is a secure Web
site that provides a firm, by market participant identifier (``MPID''),
access to TRACE trade journal files. These files are available for
Asset-Backed Securities transactions and separately for corporate bonds
and Agency Debt Securities (``Corporate/Agency Debt Securities''). The
FINRA ADDS service is free, and there are no limits on the number of
reports that a firm may request or the number of firm personnel
associated with a specified MPID that may submit such requests.
    Currently, to access the transaction information in FINRA ADDS,
entitled users of the MPID must submit a request for a trade journal
file for a specified date, which must be within 30 calendar days prior
to the date of the request. A single report is a trade journal file for
one date listing all transactions to which the requesting MPID was a
party that were reported on that date either in Asset-Backed Securities
or Corporate/Agency Debt Securities. The FINRA ADDS report provides all
of the transaction reports in which the MPID is a party to a
transaction (whether the trade was reported by the firm or another
member) on the specified date. If a firm uses multiple MPIDs, persons
authorized to use the specified MPID must make the data request to
FINRA ADDS and the data provided by FINRA ADDS is limited to
transactions involving that MPID.
    FINRA has proposed to establish two new optional TRACE data
delivery services, TRACE Data Delivery Plus and TRACE Data Delivery
Secure File Transfer Protocol (``TRACE Data Delivery SFTP''), and fees
in connection

with these services. Firms would have the option to enroll in neither,
one, or both of these services.
    TRACE Data Delivery Plus would provide greater access to TRACE
trade journal files by allowing an MPID subscriber to obtain reports
for Asset-Backed Securities or Corporate/Agency Debt Securities data
for transactions to which the MPID was a party that were reported more
than 30 calendar days before the MPID's request (i.e., transaction data
in trade journal files no longer available through the free FINRA ADDS
service).\4\ The subscriber would be able to download the requested
report(s) on demand.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As with the free FINRA ADDS service, firms interested in
TRACE Data Delivery Plus must subscribe per MPID. To access
transaction information for multiple MPIDs, a firm must obtain a
subscription for each MPID.
    \5\ Subscribers to TRACE Data Delivery Plus also will have the
option to obtain automated daily delivery of the subscriber's TRACE
trade journal files to the FINRA ADDS Web site. The automated daily
delivery of the subscriber's TRACE trade journal files to the Web
site will not constitute a request for a report for purposes of
calculating the monthly fee described below. In contrast, firms
using the free FINRA ADDS service must submit a request for data
(e.g., if an MPID wants daily delivery of the prior day's Asset-
Backed Security trade journal file, the MPID must log in each day
and submit a request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide TRACE Data Delivery Plus, FINRA has proposed to amend
Rule 7730 to charge an MPID subscriber a monthly fee. The proposed
monthly fee is based on two factors: (1) The average number of
transactions per month to which the MPID was a party that was reported
to TRACE in the prior calendar year, which number is used to categorize
the MPID in one of four tiers; \6\ and (2) the number of FINRA ADDS
reports received in a given month for transaction data that is no
longer available through the free FINRA ADDS service (i.e., transaction
data regarding transactions that were reported more than 30 calendar
days prior to the date of the request) (``Plus reports'').\7\ The
proposed monthly fees for Plus reports are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Once assigned to a tier, a subscriber would remain in the
tier for the remainder of the calendar year. For example, an MPID
that subscribes in September 2012 would be assigned to a tier based
upon the TRACE transactions reported in 2011 in which the MPID was a
party, and would remain in that tier until December 31, 2012. In
2013, the MPID would be re-evaluated and assigned to a tier for 2013
fee purposes, based upon the MPID's trading in TRACE-Eligible
Securities in 2012.
    \7\ A subscriber's monthly fee would be assessed each month and
could vary, depending on the number of reports FINRA provides in
response to the subscriber's requests. The fee would not be charged
for data requests that FINRA is unable to provide. For example,
FINRA ADDS would be unable to provide a report for a Corporate/
Agency Debt Securities trade journal file for a date prior to
February 6, 2012, the date such securities were migrated from legacy
TRACE technology to the Multi-Product Platform (``MPP'').

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tier based on average number of transactions per
  month MPID subscriber was a party to in prior      0-5 Plus reports    6-25 Plus reports    > 25 Plus reports
                  calendar year                     received per month   received per month   received per month
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1: 10,000 +.................................                  $60                  $80                 $100
Tier 2: 3,000-9,999..............................                   40                   55                   70
Tier 3: 500-2,999................................                   20                   30                   40
Tier 4: <500.....................................                   10                   15                   20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TRACE Data Delivery SFTP is an optional service that would provide
a subscribing firm with an automated interface to retrieve (without
sending a request or query) its prior day's TRACE trade journal files
from FINRA ADDS automatically via SFTP. FINRA has proposed to amend
Rule 7730 to establish two fees to provide the TRACE Data Delivery
SFTP: (1) A one-time set-up fee of $250 per subscriber; and (2) a
monthly fee of $200 per subscriber.
    FINRA has indicated that it would announce the effective date of
the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no
later than 60 days following Commission approval, and that the
effective date would be no later than 120 days following publication of
the Regulatory Notice.

III. Discussion

    After carefully reviewing the proposal, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, as well as with Section
15A(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system which the association operates or
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it proposed the described optional data services
in response to feedback from firms requesting access to more of their
TRACE transaction history and increased flexibility to access such
data.\11\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule change to
establish these data delivery services is consistent with the Act
because it will provide member firms with flexible access to more of
their TRACE transaction history, thereby assisting them in overseeing
their trading in fixed income securities. Further, the Commission
believes that the proposed fees are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 77 FR at 74250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2012-053) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01243 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20688]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

29th Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twenty-ninth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 23-27, 2012, from 9 a.m.--5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 206. The agenda will
include the following:

April 23, 2012--Opening Plenary

     Chairmen's remarks and host's comments.
     Introductions.
     Approval of previous meeting minutes.
     Review and approve meeting agenda.
     SAA-to-SWIM-to-Flightdeck Connectivity Presentation.
     Notional MET Downlink to State Data Sources Presentation.
     SC-206 Related Work in SESAR--Progress Status.
     Discuss previously proposed TOR changes and DO-252
Revision.
    [cir] Discuss TOR changes for the June PMC meeting.
     PMC decision on OSED document.
     ConUse FRAC resolution.

April 24, 2012

     ConUse FRAC resolution.

April 25, 2012

     ConUse FRAC resolution.
     ConUse FRAC resolution or SG1, SG2, and SG3 meetings.

April 26, 2012

     SG1, SG2, and SG3 meetings.
     Note: If needed, ConUse FRAC resolution could roll over
into Thursday, which will delay the start of SG meetings.

April 27, 2012--Closing Plenary

     Sub-Group 1 report.
     Sub-Group 2 report.
     Sub-Group 3 report.
     Discussion on setting up the MASPS Sub-Group (4)
and a preliminary roadmap.
     Action item review.
     Future meeting plans and dates.
     Decision to approve the ConUse document for release to the
PMC.
     Agree upon TOR changes for June PMC meeting.
     Other business.
     Adjourn--1 p.m.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. Members of the public
may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8189 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56974-56975]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-P-4027]

Determination That METICORTEN (Prednisone) Tablets, 1 Milligram
and 5 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or
Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that METICORTEN (prednisone) tablets, 1 milligram (mg) and 5
mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin
procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow FDA to
continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as they
meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meadow Platt, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6228, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1830, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants
must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are
seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same
strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of
the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to
repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain
approval of a new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is known generally as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may
determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn
from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination
may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale,
but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed
drug (Sec.  314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that
does not refer to a listed drug.
    METICORTEN (prednisone) tablets, 1 mg and 5 mg, are the subject of
NDA 09-766, held by Schering Corporation (Schering), and initially
approved on February 21, 1955. METICORTEN is indicated for the
following:
    1. Allergic states: Control of severe or incapacitating allergic
conditions intractable to adequate trials of conventional treatment in
asthma, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, drug hypersensitivity
reactions, perennial or seasonal allergic rhinitis, serum sickness;
    2. Dermatologic diseases: Bullous dermatitis herpetiformis,
exfoliative erythroderma, mycosis fungoides, pemphigus, severe erythema
multiforme (Stevens-Johnson syndrome);
    3. Endocrine disorders: Primary or secondary adrenocortical
insufficiency (hydrocortisone or cortisone is the drug of choice;
synthetic analogs may be used in conjunction with mineralocorticoids
where applicable; in infancy, mineralocorticoid supplementation is of
particular importance), congenital adrenal hyperplasia, hypercalcemia
associated with cancer, nonsuppurative thyroiditis;
    4. Gastrointestinal diseases: To tide the patient over a critical
period of the disease in regional enteritis and ulcerative colitis;
    5. Hematologic disorders: Acquired (autoimmune) hemolytic anemia,
Diamond-Blackfan anemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in adults,
pure red cell aplasia, selected cases of secondary thrombocytopenia;
    6. Miscellaneous: Trichinosis with neurologic or myocardial
involvement, tuberculous meningitis with subarachnoid block or
impending block when used with appropriate antituberculous
chemotherapy;
    7. Neoplastic diseases: For the palliative management of leukemias
and lymphomas;
    8. Nervous system: Acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis;
cerebral edema associated with primary or metastatic brain tumor,
craniotomy, or head injury;
    9. Ophthalmic diseases: Sympathetic ophthalmia, temporal arteritis,
uveitis and ocular inflammatory conditions unresponsive to topical
corticosteroids;
    10. Renal diseases: To induce diuresis or remission of proteinuria
in idiopathic nephrotic syndrome or that due to lupus erythematosus;
    11. Respiratory diseases: Berylliosis, fulminating or disseminated
pulmonary tuberculosis when used concurrently with appropriate
antituberculous chemotherapy, idiopathic eosinophilic pneumonias,
symptomatic sarcoidosis; and
    12. Rheumatic disorders: As adjunctive therapy for short-term
administration (to tide the patient over an acute episode or
exacerbation) in acute gouty arthritis; acute rheumatic carditis;
ankylosing spondylitis; psoriatic arthritis; rheumatoid arthritis,
including juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (selected cases may require
low-dose maintenance therapy). For the treatment of dermatomyositis,
polymyositis, and systemic lupus erythematosus.
    In a letter dated November 1, 2001, Schering requested withdrawal
of NDA 09-766 for METICORTEN (prednisone). In the Federal Register of
October 10, 2002 (67 FR 63107), FDA announced that it was withdrawing
approval of NDA 09-766, effective November 12, 2002.
    Strides Pharma, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated July 1,
2017 (Docket No. FDA-2017-P-4027), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that
the Agency determine whether METICORTEN (prednisone) tablets, 1 mg and
5 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records
and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined
under Sec.  314.161 that METICORTEN (prednisone) tablets, 1 mg and 5
mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The
petitioner

has identified no data or other information suggesting that these
products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have
carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of
METICORTEN (prednisone) tablets, 1 mg and 5 mg, from sale. We have also
independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible
postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence
and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list METICORTEN
(prednisone) tablets, 1 mg and 5 mg, in the ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' section of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product
List'' delineates, among other items, drug products that have been
discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or
effectiveness. FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of
approved ANDAs that refer to this drug product. Additional ANDAs for
this drug product may also be approved by the Agency as long as they
meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of
ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be
revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA
applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: November 27, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-25900 Filed 11-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74543-74544]
[DOCID:fr08de08-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59038; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Obvious Error Rules

December 2, 2008.
    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 November 26, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.25 and Rule 24.16 to adopt
procedures which would allow CBOE to review transactions on its own
motion. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal ), at the Office of the
Secretary, CBOE and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE proposes to amend Rule 6.25 and Rule 24.16 pertaining to the
nullification and adjustment of options transactions. Specifically,
CBOE proposes to adopt a new provision which provides that in the
interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the
protection of investors, the President of CBOE or his/her designee
(collectively ``CBOE officer''), who shall be an officer of CBOE but
may not be a member, may, on his or her own motion or upon request,
determine to review any transaction occurring on CBOE that is believed
to be erroneous.\3\ A transaction reviewed pursuant to this new
paragraph (3) may be nullified or adjusted only if it is determined by
the CBOE officer that the transaction is erroneous as provided in Rule
6.25(a)(1)-(6) or Rule 24.16(a)(1)-(6). A transaction would be adjusted
or nullified in accordance with the provision under which it is deemed
an erroneous transaction.\4\ The CBOE officer may be assisted by
Trading Officials in reviewing a transaction (or the senior official in
the control room in the case of transactions being reviewed under
6.25(a)(6) or Rule 24.16(a)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the event a party to a transaction requests that the
President or his/her designee review a transaction, the CBOE officer
nonetheless would need to determine, on his or her own motion,
whether to review the transaction.
    \4\ With regard to Rule 24.16, paragraph (c) pertaining to
adjustments and nullifications would also be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CBOE officer shall act pursuant to this paragraph as soon as
possible after receiving notification of the transaction, and
ordinarily would be expected to act on the same day as the transaction
occurred. However, because a transaction under review may have occurred
near the close of trading or due to unusual circumstances, the rule
provides that the CBOE officer shall act no later than 8:30 a.m. (CT)
on the next trading day following the date of the transaction at issue.
A member affected by a determination to nullify or adjust a transaction
pursuant to this new paragraph (3) may appeal such determination in
accordance with Rule 6.25(d) or Rule 24.16(d); however, a determination
by a CBOE officer not to review a transaction, or a determination not
to nullify or adjust a transaction for which a review was requested or
conducted, is not appealable. CBOE believes it is appropriate to limit
review on appeal to only those situations in which a transaction is
actually nullified or adjusted. Additionally, transactions adjusted or
nullified pursuant to this new paragraph cannot be reviewed by an
Obvious Error Panel under paragraph (c) of Rule 6.25.
    This new provision is not intended to replace a party's obligation
to request review, within the required time periods under Rule 6.25 and
Rule 24.16, of any transaction that it believes meets the criteria for
an obvious error. And, if a transaction is reviewed and a determination
is rendered pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), Rule 6.25 and
Rule 24.16, as amended, specifically state that relief shall not be
granted under this new paragraph (b)(3).
    Moreover, CBOE does not anticipate exercising this new authority in
every situation in which a party fails to make a timely request for
review of a transaction under paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 6.25 and Rule
24.16. CBOE believes this provision will help to protect the integrity
of its marketplace by vesting a CBOE officer with the authority to
review a transaction that may be erroneous, in those situations where a
party failed to make a timely request for a review.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \5\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. CBOE notes that the CBOE officer can
adjust or nullify a transaction under the authority granted by this new
provision only if the transaction meets the objective criteria for an
obvious error under CBOE's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-118 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-CBOE-2008-118. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; 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-CBOE-2008-118 and should be submitted on
or before December 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28965 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70178-70179]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27817]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0719; FRL 9919-79-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges From the Application
of Pesticides to Waters of the United States

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the
Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States'' (EPA ICR No.
2397.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0284) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through Nov. 30, 2014. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR
41548), on July 16, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 26,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2008-0719, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Letnes, State and Regional
Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with
information collection and reporting activities from EPA and state
NPDES general permits for point source discharges from the application
of pesticides to waters of the United States. On November 27, 2006, EPA
issued a final rule (hereinafter called the ``2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule'') clarifying circumstances in which an NPDES permit was not
required to apply pesticide to, or over, including near, waters of the
U.S. On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court vacated EPA's 2006
NPDES Pesticides Rule. As a result of the Court's decision, beginning
October 31, 2011 NPDES permits were required for discharges to waters
of the U.S. from the application of biological pesticides and chemical
pesticides that leave a residue. Regulations governing permit
requirements for NPDES discharges are codified at 40 CFR part 122. This
ICR includes information submitted or recorded by permittees as well as
information used primarily by permitting authorities. The permitting
authority will use the information to assess permittee compliance and
modify/add new permit requirements as appropriate. The estimated burden
in this ICR is based on EPA's NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP).
    Form Numbers: 6100-22, 6100-23, 6100-24, 6100-25, 6100-26.
    Respondents/affected entities: Pesticide applicators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: mandatory (40 CFR 122).
    Estimated number of respondents: 365,047 total (365,000 permittees,
47 permitting authorities [46 states and Virgin Islands]).
    Frequency of response: varies from once, every 5 years, to
occasionally as needed.
    Total estimated burden: 834,756 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $38,662,462 ($38,462,682 for permittees and
$199,780 for permitting authorities), includes $0 annualized capital or
O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 12,896 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. EPA expects that the 2016 PGP will be similar to
the 2011 PGP. All of the decrease in burden is attributable to the
shift from the 2011 PGP to the 2016 PGP in year 3 of this ICR when
permittees renewing their coverage would not need to develop a new
Pesticide Discharge Management Plan.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-27817 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P