DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise

Chambers Works

Deepwater, NJ  08023

CERTIFIED MAIL – Return Receipt Requested

July 24, 2007

US Environmental Protection Agency

Document Control Office

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 6428

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: 	EPA – HQ – OPPT – 2003 - 0012

	DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100

	PFOA Data Submittal – Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples

	April 2007 Sample Data

Dear Document Control Office,

As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during April 2007. We will continue to send you the reports each month.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3105.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Pinder

SET Environmental Coordinator

DuPont Chambers Works

Enclosures

Copies to:

US Environmental Protection Agency

Director, Chemical Control Division

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

EPA East

Room 4146

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only)

Principal Environmental Engineer

NJDEP Division of Water Quality

Bureau of Point Source Permitting – Region 2

401 E. State Street

P.O. Box 029

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75840-75841]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040]

SGS North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for SGS North America, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
December 19, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Acting Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web
page includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), as an NRTL. SGS's
expansion covers the addition of four test standards to its scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the Agency's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    SGS submitted an application, dated May 28, 2014 (OSHA-2006-0040-
0014, Exhibit 14-3--SGS Request for Expansion), to expand its
recognition to include four \1\ additional test standards. OSHA staff
performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed
other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews
in relation to this application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its application, SGS initially requested expansion for 5
standards. However, documentation for the fifth standard, UL 859,
was submitted late and the review of SGS's capabilities for that
standard will be handled separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's expansion
application in the Federal Register on

August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51615). The Agency requested comments by
September 15, 2014, but it received no comments in response to this
notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final notice to grant
expansion of SGS's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
SGS's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC
20210. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0040 contains all materials in the record
concerning SGS's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined SGS's expansion application, its capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that SGS
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below.
OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant SGS's
scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of SGS's recognition to
testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance
to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in SGS's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Test  standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 982............................  Motor-Operated Household Food
                                     Preparing Machines.
UL 1026...........................  Electric Household Cooking and Food
                                     Serving Appliances.
UL 1028...........................  Hair Clipping and Shaving
                                     Appliances.
UL 1431...........................  Personal Hygiene and Health Care
                                     Appliances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
SGS must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. SGS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. SGS must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. SGS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on SGS's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of SGS, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 15, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-29732 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49515-49516]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-21, OMB Control No. 3235-0025]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 30e-1

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for
extension of the previously approved collection of information
discussed below.
    Rule 30e-1 (17 CFR 270.30e-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (``Investment Company Act'') generally
requires a registered investment company (``fund'') to transmit to its
shareholders, at least semi-annually, reports containing the
information that is required to be included in such reports by the
fund's registration statement form under the Investment Company Act.
The purpose of the collection of information required by rule 30e-1 is
to provide fund shareholders with current information about the
operation of their funds in accordance with Section 30 of the
Investment Company Act.
    Approximately 2,490 funds, with a total of approximately 10,750
portfolios, respond to rule 30e-1 annually. Based on conversations with
fund representatives, we estimate that it takes approximately 84 hours
to comply with the collection of information associated with rule 30e-1
per portfolio. This time is spent, for example, preparing, reviewing,
and certifying the reports. Accordingly, we calculate the total
estimated annual internal burden of responding to rule 30e-1 to be
approximately 903,000 hours (84 hours x 10,750 portfolios). In addition
to the burden hours, based on conversations with fund representatives,
we estimate that the total cost burden of compliance with the
information collection requirements of rule 30e-1 is approximately
$31,061 per portfolio. This includes, for example, the costs for funds
to prepare, print, and mail the reports. Accordingly, we calculate the
total external cost burden associated with rule 30e-1 to be
approximately $333,905,750.
    Estimates of the average burden hours are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. The collection of information under rule
30e-1 is mandatory. The information provided under rule 30e-1 will not
be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by August 30, 2023 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: July 25, 2023.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16100 Filed 7-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42276]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13920]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0932; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment VOR Federal Airways V-20, V-31, V-33, V-308, and V-433;
and Revocation of V-379; in the Vicinity of Nottingham, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 16, 2017, proposing to amend Very High Frequency
(VHF) Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-20, V-31, V-33, V-
308, and V-433; and revoke V-379; due to the planned decommissioning of
the Nottingham, MD (OTT), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation System (VORTAC).

DATES: Effective as of 0901 UTC, June 30, 2023, the proposed rule
published October 16, 2017 (82 FR 48011), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for Withdrawal

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0932 (82 FR 48011; October 16, 2017).
The NPRM proposed to amend VOR Federal airways V-20, V-31, V-33, V-308,
and V-433; and revoke V-379; due to the planned decommissioning of the
Nottingham, MD, VORTAC (OTT) which provides navigation guidance for
portions of the affected airways. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. No comments were received. Subsequent to the NPRM, the
Nottingham, MD (OTT), VORTAC decommissioning was delayed, and other
airway docket actions rendered this proposal unnecessary.

Conclusion

    The FAA determined that the NPRM published on October 16, 2017, is
unnecessary. Therefore, the FAA withdraws that NPRM.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-13920 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18655-18657]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07010]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69203; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Order Router Subsidy Program for
Complex Orders

March 21, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 8, 2013, 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 enter into subsidy arrangements with any
CBOE Trading Permit Holder or Non-CBOE Trading Permit Holder broker-
dealer that provide certain order routing functionalities with respect
to complex orders \3\ to other CBOE Trading Permit Holders, Non-CBOE
Trading Permit Holders and/or use such functionalities themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of the ORS [sic] Program, a ``complex order''
shall have the definition set forth in the first sentence of CBOE
Rule 6.53C(a)(1) which reads ``[a] ``complex order'' is any order
involving the execution of two or more different options series in
the same underlying security occurring at or near the same time in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) (or such lower ratio as may be
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis) and for the
purpose of executing a particular investment strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On April 5, 2007, CBOE established the Order Router Subsidy Program
(the ``ORS Program'') which allows CBOE to enter into subsidy
arrangements with CBOE Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') that provide
certain order routing functionalities to other CBOE TPHs and/or use
such functionalities themselves.\4\ The Exchange later extended this
program to enable CBOE to establish such subsidy arrangements with
broker-dealers that are not CBOE TPHs and to permit participating CBOE
TPHs and participating non-CBOE TPHs to receive subsidy payments for
providing order routing functionality to broker-dealers who are not
CBOE TPHs.\5\ Specifically, CBOE TPHs and non-CBOE TPHs who enter into
such subsidy arrangements receive a payment from CBOE for every
executed contract for orders routed to CBOE through their system.
Currently, the ORS Program permits subsidy payments with respect to
simple, non-complex orders only. The Exchange now proposes to establish
the Complex Order Router Subsidy Program (the ``CORS Program'' or
``Program''), which is a similar program but would permit subsidy
payments with respect to complex orders only. Specifically, the CORS
Program would permit CBOE to enter into subsidy arrangements with any
CBOE TPH (each, a ``Participating TPH'') or Non-CBOE TPH broker-dealer
(each a ``Participating Non-CBOE TPH'') that provide certain order
routing functionalities with respect to complex orders \6\ to other
CBOE TPHs, Non-CBOE TPHs and/or use such functionalities themselves.
(The term ``Participant'' as used in this filing refers to either a
Participating TPH or a Participating Non-CBOE TPH). The purpose of this
proposed change is to incentivize the sending of complex orders to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55629 (April 13,
2007), 72 FR 19992 (April 20, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-034).
Additionally, the description of the current program was clarified
in SR-CBOE-2008-27. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57498
(March 14, 2008), 73 FR 15018 (March 20, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-27).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63631 (January 3,
2011), 76 FR 1203 (January 7, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2010-117).
    \6\ For purposes of the CORS Program, a ``complex order'' shall
have the definition set forth in the first sentence of CBOE Rule
6.53C(a)(1) which reads ``[a] ``complex order'' is any order
involving the execution of two or more different options series in
the same underlying security occurring at or near the same time in a
ratio that is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and less
than or equal to three-to-one (3.00) (or such lower ratio as may be
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis) and for the
purpose of executing a particular investment strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the complex order subsidy arrangement, a
Participant's order routing functionality would have to be capable of
interfacing with CBOE's API to access current CBOE trade engine
functionality and must be configured to cause CBOE to be the default
destination exchange for complex orders, but allow any user to manually
override CBOE as the default destination on an order-by-order basis.
Any CBOE TPH or broker-dealer that is not a CBOE TPH would be permitted
to avail itself of this arrangement, provided that its order routing
functionality incorporates the features described above and it signs an
agreement agreeing to abide by the provisions of the Program.
Additionally, Participants must satisfy CBOE that their order routing
functionality appears to be robust and reliable. The Participant would
be solely responsible for implementing and operating its system.
    CBOE is proposing to make payments to Participants for every
executed contract for complex orders routed to CBOE through that
Participant's system to subsidize their costs associated with providing
order routing functionalities for complex orders. The payment would be
$0.04 per executed contract of each leg \7\ for complex orders routed
to CBOE through a Participant's system. The Exchange notes that the
amount of the subsidy payment per executed contract for complex orders
will be the same as the subsidy payment per executed contract for
simple, non-complex orders under the ORS Program. The Participants
would have to agree that they are not entitled to receive any other
revenue for the use of their system, specifically with respect to
complex orders routed to CBOE.\8\ Participants

would not be precluded, however, from receiving payment for order flow
if they choose to do so. Any CBOE TPH or broker-dealer that is not a
CBOE TPH would be permitted to avail itself of both this arrangement
and the arrangement under the ORS Program, so long as its order routing
functionality incorporates the features required under the CORS Program
and the features required under the ORS Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, if a complex order to buy ten March 50 call
options and to sell ten March 55 call options were executed, the
transaction would count as 20 contracts for calculating the fee
payable to Participant.
    \8\ This requirement would not prevent the Participant from
charging fees (for example, a flat monthly fee) for the general use
of its order routing system. Nor would it prevent the Participant
from charging fees or commissions in accordance with its general
practices with respect to transactions effected through its system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed CORS Program is substantially
similar to the current ORS Program. One notable difference however, is
that Participants in the ORS Program are required to incorporate a
function allowing orders at a specified price to be sent to multiple
exchanges with a simple click (``sweep function'') and the sweep
function needs to be configured to cause an order to be sent to CBOE
for up to the full size quoted by CBOE if CBOE is at the NBBO. Unlike
simple, non-complex orders, there is no NBBO for complex orders and an
exception from the prohibition on trade-throughs is provided for any
transaction that was effected as a portion of a complex order.\9\
Therefore, the sweep function required under the ORS Program for
simple, non-complex orders would not be applicable to complex orders
and accordingly is not required under the CORS Program. Additionally,
Participants under the CORS Program would not be required to enable the
electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges or
provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options
exchanges. The Exchange notes that this requirement would not make
sense in the CORS Program as some options exchanges do not offer
complex order execution systems. The Exchange also notes that the
optional Marketing Service Election and Billing Election under the ORS
Program would not be available under the CORS Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CBOE Rule 6.81(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, nothing in the proposed subsidy arrangement relieves any
CBOE TPH or non-CBOE TPH broker-dealer that is using an order routing
functionality whose provider is participating in the CORS Program from
complying with its best execution obligations. Just as with any
customer order and any other routing functionality, both a CBOE TPH and
a non-CBOE TPH broker dealer have an obligation to consider the
availability of price improvement at various markets and whether
routing a customer order through a functionality that incorporates the
features described above would allow for access to such opportunities
if readily available. Moreover, any user, whether or not a CBOE TPH,
needs to conduct best execution evaluations on a regular basis, at a
minimum quarterly, that include its use of any router incorporating the
features described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''), in general. Specifically,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the proposed adoption of a subsidy
payment program for complex orders is reasonable because it affords
Participants an opportunity to receive payments to subsidize the costs
associated with providing certain order routing functionalities. The
Exchange believes that limiting the subsidy payment to those that
provide complex order routing functionalities is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Participants of the Program have
devoted resources to provide the order routing functionalities. The
proposed change further encourages CBOE TPHs and broker-dealers that
are not CBOE TPHs to provide complex order routing functionalities.
Limiting the Program to complex orders is reasonable because a similar
program already exists for simple, non-complex orders. Moreover, the
proposed complex order subsidy amount is the same amount as already
exists for simple, non-complex orders under the ORS Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that this proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any CBOE TPH or
broker-dealer that is not a CBOE TPH may avail itself of this
arrangement, provided that its complex order routing functionality
incorporates the requirements set forth above. Finally, the proposed
change incentivizes the sending of more complex orders to the Exchange.
This increased liquidity creates greater trading opportunities that
benefit all market participants, including market participants who send
only simple orders to the Exchange (as simple orders can trade with the
legs of complex orders).

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 that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change will impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it will apply equally to all
participating parties. Although the subsidy for complex orders routed
to CBOE through a Participant's system only applies to Participants of
the Program, the subsidy for complex orders is designed to encourage
the sending of more complex orders to the Exchange, which should
provide greater liquidity and trading opportunities for all market
participants. This includes market participants who send simple orders
to the Exchange (as simple orders can trade with the legs of complex
orders).
    Further, the Exchange does not believe that such change will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
notes that, should the proposed changes make CBOE more attractive for
trading, market participants trading on other exchanges can always
elect to provide order routing functionality to CBOE for complex
orders. Additionally, to the extent that subsidy payments for complex
orders under the CORS Program may result in increased trading volume on
CBOE and lessened volume on other exchanges, the Exchange notes that
market participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to
become TPHs on CBOE to take advantage of the trading opportunities.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such

action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-032. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-032, and should be
submitted on or before April 17, 2013.
    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. 2013-07010 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6249-6250]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-16]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 234, 259, and 399

[Docket No. OST-2007-0022]
RIN 2105-AD72

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Extension of comment period on proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department is extending through March 9, 2009, the period
for interested persons to submit comments to its proposed rule on
enhancing airline passenger protections.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 9, 2009. Comments received
after this date will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2007-0022 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
written comments. A standard form has been created for those who wish
to use it in submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    We strongly encourage you to use the standard form to submit
comments. To access the form, go to http://www.regulations.gov and use
the SEARCH DOCUMENTS field provided to input the docket number for this
rulemaking. You can then search the index for ``Public comment standard
form.'' This form may then be moved to your computer desktop, where you
can type in your comments. You may then attach the form when you submit
your comments to the docket.
    If you do not use the standard form, you must include the agency
name and docket number DOT-OST-2007-0022 or the Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your
comment. All comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daeleen Chesley or Blane Workie,
Office of Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SW., W96-414, Washington, DC 29590.
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. TTY:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 8, 2008, 73 FR 74586, Dec. 8,
2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) published in
the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed to enhance airline passenger protections in the following
ways: By requiring air carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy
tarmac delays and incorporate them in their contracts of carriage, by
requiring air carriers to respond to consumer problems, by deeming the
continued operation of a flight that is chronically late to be unfair
and deceptive in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712, by requiring air
carriers to publish information on flight delays on their Web sites,
and by requiring air carriers to adopt customer service plans,
incorporate these into their contracts of carriage, and audit their own
compliance with their plans. Comments on the matters proposed are due
60 days after publication of the NPRM, or by February 6, 2009.
    On December 30, 2008, the Air Transport Association (ATA) requested
an extension of 60 days time in the comment period for this rulemaking.
According to ATA, the extension of time is needed in order for it to
develop a more complete and accurate cost-benefit analysis of the
proposed rule than is contained in the Initial Regulatory Evaluation.
In support of its request, ATA states that the Initial Regulatory
Evaluation contains estimates on costs of the rule without input from
affected carriers and that other estimates are vastly underestimated.
In particular, ATA points to costs associated with litigation that it
asserts will result if carriers are required to make contingency plans
or customer service plans part of their contracts of carriage, costs of
developing Web sites to contain information not currently required to
be provided consumers, and costs on carriers and the public of any
requirement dictating maximum tarmac delay times. ATA also points, in
support of its request for additional time, to the coordination it
claims will be necessary on the rule and notes that the comment period
includes the end-of-year holiday. As of January 13, 2009, no comments
were filed in response to ATA's request.
    We have decided to grant an extension of 31 days time, or until
March 9, 2009, for the public to comment on the NPRM. In doing so, we
note that ATA and other interested parties already have had a
significant amount of time to review and analyze the matters at issue
in the NPRM, including providing the Department with the cost data it
says is necessary. On November 18, 2008, 20 days prior to the December
8, 2008, publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register, which began
the 60-day comment period, the Department published the proposal in its
own public docket system and publicized that fact. Thus, all interested
parties would have had 80 days to review and comment on the proposals,
even without the additional 31 days we are now granting. Moreover, most
of the issues encompassed by the NPRM are not by any means new to ATA
and other interested parties, since they were first proposed for
comment approximately 14 months ago in an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, issued November 15, 2007, on which ATA among others
commented. Accordingly, the Department finds that good cause exists to
extend the time for comments on the proposed rule from February 6,
2009, to March 9, 2009.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 29th day of January 2009, under
authority assigned to me by 14 CFR 385.17 (c).
Neil R. Eisner,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of Regulation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E9-2548 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 95078-95079]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31025]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0562; FRL-9957-25-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; 2016 Nitrogen Oxides Averaging Plan Consent Agreement With
Raven Power

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Maryland state implementation plan (SIP).
Maryland has submitted for inclusion in the SIP a Consent Agreement
between Maryland and Raven Power concerning an inter-facility averaging
plan for emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) at facilities
located in Maryland and owned by Raven Power. The Consent Agreement
allows Raven Power to use system-wide emissions averaging to comply
with the applicable NOX emission limits for six units
located at two electric generating facilities, Brandon Shores and H.A.
Wagner, owned by Raven Power. EPA is proposing to approve this revision
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before January 26,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0562 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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 the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Maryland's COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>--Control of NOX Emissions
for Major Stationary Sources--was approved into Maryland's SIP pursuant
to section 182 of the CAA. This regulation established NOX
emission limits for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for specific types of boilers and other fuel-burning
equipment. Specifically, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.C(2) established maximum
NOX emission rates as pounds (lbs) of NOX per
million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour, ranging from 0.45 lbs/
MMBtu to 0.80 lbs/MMBtu, depending on the type of combustion unit.
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> also contains a provision that allows an owner or
operator of more than one unit to demonstrate compliance with system-
wide emissions standards through the use of an averaging plan.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 28, 2016, the State of Maryland through the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted to EPA a SIP revision
submittal consisting of a Consent Agreement between MDE and Raven Power
establishing an inter-facility averaging plan for NOX
emissions at two electric generating facilities, Brandon Shores and
H.A. Wagner, collectively called Fort Smallwood. Both facilities are
owned by Raven Power. MDE requests that this new Consent Agreement and
NOX averaging plan replace the Consent Order and
NOX averaging plan previously approved into the Maryland SIP
on February 27, 2002 (67 FR 8897).
    The Consent Agreement between MDE and Raven Power allows Raven
Power to use system-wide emissions averaging to comply with the
applicable NOX limits for six boiler units (Brandon Shores
units 1 and 2 and H.A. Wagner units 1 through 4) subject to COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>. Pursuant to the new Consent Agreement, Raven Power is
required to calculate mass emissions from the affected units on a daily
basis, determine compliance with the averaging plan using continuous
emissions monitors (CEMs), and to submit quarterly reports to both MDE
and EPA. In the Consent Agreement, Raven Power agreed that if it fails
to comply with the NOX averaging plan, all sources at
Brandon Shores and Wagner remain subject to the unit-specific emission
limits of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.C (shown in Table 1) and must demonstrate
compliance through the requirements found in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.B(2).
The aggregate mass emissions from all units at Brandon Shores and
Wagner, under the NOX averaging plan, must be less than the
mass emissions that would otherwise occur if each unit were subject to
the applicable NOX emissions limit of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.C.

             Table 1--NOX Emission Limits for Fort Smallwood
                      [as per COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.C]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Limit  (lbs/
                    Facility                       Unit       MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Shores.................................        1             0.5
                                                       2             0.5
H.A. Wagner....................................        1             0.3
                                                       2             0.5
                                                       3             0.5
                                                       4             0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, according to the Consent Agreement, Raven Power must
submit a written report and certify annually that the annual
NOX mass emissions for all six affected units are at least
twenty percent less than otherwise allowed from the affected units by
the applicable NOX emission limits of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. A
more detailed description of the NOX averaging plan can be
found in the technical support document (TSD) on www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0562. In addition, in the July 28,
2016 SIP submittal, Maryland seeks to remove from the Maryland SIP the
April 2001 Consent Order between Maryland and Constellation Power
Source Generation (Constellation) which functioned as a NOX
averaging plan for compliance with COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> for ten units at
five facilities--Brandon Shores units 1 and 2; C.P. Crane units 1 and
2; H.A. Wagner units 1 through 4; Gould Street unit 3; and Riverside
unit 4. EPA had approved the April 2001 Consent Order between Maryland
and Constellation into the Maryland SIP on February 27, 2002 (67 FR
8897). The 2001 NOX averaging plan is no longer effective
for compliance with COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> as Constellation is not the owner
of all of these units and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> permitted system-wide
averaging only when the same person owned or operated all affected
units. COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.B(4)(a).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA has evaluated Maryland's SIP revision submittal and believes
Raven Power's NOX emissions averaging plan meets all the
applicable requirements of the SIP-approved COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>,
particularly subsection .08B(4) for emissions averaging. The Consent
Agreement also includes appropriate provisions for monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting as well as assuring compliance and
enforceability. As discussed in the TSD in more detail, EPA expects the
Consent Agreement will strengthen the Maryland SIP and lead to
additional NOX emission reductions. Thus, the SIP is
approvable under CAA section 110.
    In addition, EPA finds that this SIP revision submittal meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) as it will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress,
or any other applicable CAA requirement, because the NOX
averaging plan requires that annual system-wide NOX mass
emissions from Brandon Shores and Wagner be at least twenty percent
less than otherwise allowed from these affected units by the applicable
NOX emission limits of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and because the
prior NOX emissions averaging plan that included Brandon
Shores, Wagner, and other unrelated units is no longer effective, since
the owners have changed. The previously approved April 2001
Constellation NOX averaging plan required that annual
system-wide NOX mass emissions be at least five percent less
than otherwise allowed by the applicable NOX emission limits
of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. The system-wide averaging from the new
NOX averaging plan which requires at least a twenty percent
reduction compared to rates applicable to individual emitting units
should provide additional NOX emission reductions. EPA
believes the emission reductions from this NOX averaging
plan will be beneficial to both Maryland and the ozone transport region
(OTR). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision in
accordance with requirements in CAA section 110. EPA is soliciting
public comments on the issues discussed in this document and these
comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference Maryland's Consent Agreement with Raven Power
concerning a NOX averaging plan discussed in section II of
this document as well as in the TSD supporting this rulemaking action.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region
III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 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. 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 proposed 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);
     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 concerning Maryland's
NOX averaging plan Consent Agreement with Raven Power 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: December 12, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016-31025 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20347-20349]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8706]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108; FRL-9292-8]

Release of Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On or about March 31, 2011, the EPA is making available for
public review the draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Lead (draft IRP). This document contains the
plans for the review of the air quality criteria and national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for lead (Pb). The Pb NAAQS provide for
the protection of public health and the environment from Pb in ambient
air.

DATES: Comments should be submitted by April 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This document will be available primarily via the Internet
at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0108. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless

the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov (or e-mail). The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Deirdre Murphy, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (Mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-0729; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM, the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Information Specific to This Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment
and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. section 7408) directs
the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then
to issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator
is to list those air pollutants that in her ``judgment, cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare;'' ``the presence of which in the
ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary
sources;'' and ``for which * * * [the Administrator] plans to issue air
quality criteria * * *'' Air quality criteria are intended to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air * * *'' 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Under section
109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), EPA establishes primary (health-based) and
secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality
criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air
quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also
required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate,
based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an
independent scientific review committee ``shall complete a review of
the criteria * * * and the national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards * * * and shall recommend to the Administrator any
new * * * standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as
may be appropriate * * * .'' Since the early 1980's, this independent
review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC).
    Presently, EPA is reviewing the NAAQS for Pb.\1\ The draft document
announced today is being developed as part of the planning phase for
the review. This phase began with a science policy workshop to identify
issues and questions to frame the review. Drawing from the workshop
discussions, a draft integrated review plan (IRP) has been prepared
jointly by EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, within
the Office of Research and Development, and EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, within the Office of Air and Radiation. This
document will be available on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network
(TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html. The document will be accessible in the

``Documents from Current Review'' section under ``Planning Documents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on
February 26, 2010 (75 FR 8934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft IRP is being made available for consultation with CASAC
and for public comment. Comments should be submitted to the docket, as
described above, by April 28, 2011. The CASAC consultation on this
planning document is scheduled for May 5, 2011. A separate Federal
Register notice will provide details about this meeting and the process
for participation. The final IRP will be prepared in consideration of
CASAC and public comments. The draft document announced today presents
the current plan and specifies the schedule for the entire review, the
process for conducting the review, and the key policy-relevant science
issues that will guide the review. This draft document does not
represent and should not be construed to represent any final EPA
policy, viewpoint, or determination.

    Dated: April 6, 2011.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-8706 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P